
The Founder Visa (again) - dmnd
http://blog.samaltman.com/the-founder-visa-again
======
acslater00
This is a great idea, can I do this too?? The government can give me 100 visas
to allocate, and I'll give them to international entrepreneurs whom I consider
to be deserving and who incidentally and in a _totally_ non quid-pro-quo
fashion agree to sell me a 7% stake in their companies for a nominal fee.

I'll also buy them pizza once a week, if that sweetens the pot.

~~~
pc
Airbnb and Dropbox will tell you that YC was instrumental in their success.*
And, indeed, that the YC equity stake is worth it. So I think the thrust of
your argument is off-base -- there's _some_ plausible justification for it.

But to your broader point -- conferring immigration status upon acceptance by
an arbitrarily-designated institution makes me uncomfortable too. However,
it's a ship that sailed a long time ago. (Colleges, for e.g.) Given that we
effectively permit universities to pick hundreds of thousands of visa
recipients every year, experimenting with 100 for entrepreneurship seems not
insane.

* (So will Stripe!)

~~~
teacup50
Survivor bias is the opposite of objectively rational and actionable data.

[edit]

The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special
privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a
way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position.

It'd be hard for me to look at this privilege being granted as anything other
than evidence of corporate/investor oligarchical corruption -- an outlook that
isn't improved by your referencing their importance to success.

~~~
pc
Well, I think survivorship bias is separate (though, agreed, it is endemic in
our industry) -- the logic wouldn't change in this argument even if YC had
_only_ funded Airbnb and Dropbox. It may be a case of misattribution by the
founders concerned, but hey -- in the absence of RCTs, trusting them seems
like the right default.

> _The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special
> privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a
> way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position._

I don't think Sam's argument is quite as self-serving, though I see how it
could be interpreted this way. I think he'd agree that YC should not be a
gatekeeper. (As in PG's original proposal.) But _if_ the argument against the
original proposal is that we somehow need more data before rolling it out
everywhere, running a smaller experiment with YC would seem to be better than
nothing at all.

I completely agree with you that a steady-state world of privileged visa-
granters is not what we should be trying to bring about.

~~~
teacup50
> _... trusting them seems like the right default._

Wouldn't objective analysis be the right default, rather than trusting those
that were successful within an organization that has incentives that are, in
the majority, contrary if not in outright competition, to your own?

YC isn't a charity, as I'm sure you're aware, and success is not guaranteed.
They're in the business of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Nobody wants to be the spaghetti that doesn't stick, but the vast majority
will be, and it's in YC's interests to keep convincing new people to jump in
the pot.

So no, I don't trust them, or their motives, or think that it's to the benefit
of anyone other than YC to grant them special immigration privileges. I
certainly don't think outlier examples justify or prove YC's value to the
American people, or to foreign citizens who might wish to pursue their
interests here.

------
danielharan
This is a terrible idea.

VCs have proposed the same solution in Canada; the government canned the old
investor visa and allowed founders to get a startup when they receive
investment from some of our VCs. (There were many more investor visa than VCs
can even process. We'll end up with less total job creation. You have to be
careful what you lobby for, and how it will be implemented!)

What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the
hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated
on age, ethnicity, gender, etc.

I'm not saying I wouldn't trust Sam Altman. I just wouldn't trust most VCs
with this task.

~~~
danielharan
Down-voters: explain, please?

You don't think the experience from this type of policy being tried somewhere
else is relevant? That it won't backfire?

~~~
ahomescu1
The way you explained it, it seems you're blaming the VCs for something that
was government's fault (it was the government's decision to cancel the old
visas, instead of keeping them in parallel with the new one).

~~~
nostrademons
"Blame" is the wrong way to think about any major policy decision. Instead,
you want to think of the _effects_ of the new policy - whether or not anyone
intends to do harm (most people don't), will harm result? The grandparent
poster's experience with a similar policy in Canada is very relevant there. I
don't personally have a position about founder visas - I'm a U.S. citizen, so
they don't affect me - but I do think that having all the arguments for and
against, particularly concerning unintended consequences, is pretty important.

~~~
ahomescu1
The way I understood the poster, the harm came from the government canceling
the old investor visas. That seems pretty easy to fix: just add new visas on
top of the old ones. The consequences of the way it happened were pretty
clear: a bunch of people who previously would use the old investor visas
(where you could put up your own money, I imagine) now can't. The effects of
this decision shouldn't have been surprising to anyone.

~~~
nostrademons
The problem is that you and I don't control what the government does.
Government stupidity is a reality that has to be factored into decision-
making. And maybe there's a way around it in this case - perhaps whoever
drafts & sponsors the Founder Visa law just needs to be aware of the potential
pitfall and make everyone else involved aware of why there need to be separate
founder & investor visas, most of the time stupid decisions are made because
reasonable people don't have all the information necessary - but it's still
really important to be aware of it so you don't create unintended
consequences. Saying "Well, I had the right idea, it just turned out to be a
disaster because of other people" doesn't stop it from being a disaster.

------
geebee
The part of this that really worries me is that would-be founders, after
making their pitch, are now waiting to find out if the investors have bestowed
the right to live and work in the US upon them.

I understand that it is complicated. The US only takes about 1.2 million
immigrants legally into the country every year, and because of our emphasis on
family reunification, this means that startup founders may not get one of the
spots.

If you make this about whether these folks should be allowed into the US, the
answer (yes) is pretty simple, which is why some people think it is a simple
question.

If you make this about whether a wealthy investor is now not only empowered
not only to decide who gets money, but also who gets citizenship, it isn't
nearly as obvious an answer. I would hope that people find the idea
unsettling, no matter how high their regard is for the investors asking for
this new power.

~~~
sama
It shouldn't be the only way to get a (nonimmigrant in this proposal,
incidentally) visa. But I really do believe it should be one way--it's hard to
argue that more startups would hurt the economy.

I agree with you that there is a level of discomfort inherent in letting
investors influence who gets visas, but honestly they know more about what
startups have a chance at great success than government officers.

~~~
teacup50
> _it 's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy._

It's not as clear that government subsidization of _your_ position would
benefit the economy in the long-term, especially after more closely examining
the beneficiaries of the majority of wealth extracted by VC startups.

It frightens that you seem to honestly believe that you -- specifically and
individually -- deserve special privileges that not only will the rest of us
equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens not get, but
that will make it that much harder for us to compete with your already
privileged position.

~~~
ahomescu1
I don't see any claims of "government subsidization" or "special privileges".
I think this kind of visa would allow people to move to the US to start a
company, on equal footing with "equally hard-working, economy-growing,
business-founding citizens".

~~~
teacup50
It's right there in the article. He's requesting that the government grant to
YC:

1) An allotment of visas.

2) Control over the allocation of those visas

... _possibly_ to be extended to other venture capital firms (nobody else, of
course, and certainly nobody self-funding a company with capital equivalent to
that which YC provides). He's happy for YC to be the only beta tester for now,
though.

~~~
ahomescu1
How does this give special privileges to the recipients of those visas?

~~~
namenotrequired
No, they're saying it gives special privilege to YC.

------
pm24601
Yet another go-nowhere idea. Paul, et. al. apparently still haven't learned
politics.

The 'startup visa' will happen when Paul, et. al. :

1\. realizes that access != power

2\. demonstrate power by having a group of people who have immigration reform
as their top voting issue.

3\. stop thinking that sending mass emails is effective. Congress has good
spam filters too.

4\. they need to put serious money behind it and even more serious time.

5\. they must make allies with the broader range of groups working to deal
with the immigration issues.

6\. Lastly, they need to realize that the immigration issue gets solved for
everyone or it doesn't get solved for anyone.

Before anyone argues with me: google "illegal immigration families broken up".
Those people fighting to get their brother and sister, mother and father back.
Those people have the power in the immigration fight.

Paul sitting around and arguing about 100 visas from an ROI perspective just
demonstrates utter cluelessness about politics.

Hell, its not even a good pitch!

I predict the Startup Visa is DOA (again).

------
kamaal
After reading all this I guess for guys like me(Indian, staying in Bangalore)
hopes of coming to US to do start up is impossible any way. The only real way
is to build a start up(Which many of us already are working on) here, secure
some millions of $'s in funding. But then if you have millions of $'s in a
country like India, you are already a king. You can buy things and live a life
no ordinary Indian can possibly imagine in their wildest dreams. 1 million
dollars is 6,00,00,000 rupees- You can buy enough real estate to secure a rent
income to never have you ever work again ever!

What pains me most is majority of the Indians getting Visa's are really the
manager's pets kind of guys who find their way to US through sycophancy, then
go and do the same there. There is tons of talent here which can generate all
the jobs and taxes US needs who will never ever get a Visa. Unfortunately
those guys will never touch US shores. At least not with Visa's to start
companies there.

The Bangalore ecosystem is rich and overflowing with start up talent. A
mixture of this and US start up ecosystem would just be unimaginable amazing.

------
bertil
I have a counter-proposal: Paul Graham and others have described Y Combinator
as large; many US-based entrepreneurs described San Francisco as far and a
handful of comments here point out how concentration in one city is hurting
everyone.

Why not start a Y Combinator in Europe and in Asia?

Yes, that would require flight tickets to visit from organisations, but that
would also allow a better access to incredible initiatives (that keep yelling
in unheard comments that Silicon Vally is neglecting them) such as London’s
Start-up Roundabout, Paris’ The Family and certainly far more in Berlin,
Copenhagen and Amsterdam. I can’t imagine Singapour, Beijing and Hong-Kong and
GuandDong have any less merits, certainly with hardware, or less things to
learn from Y Combinator.

What both need is access to capital and access to expertise on how to make
that kind of deals; what Y Combinator provides is a needed discipline about
testing and scaling, and that. Both travel far better than the founders, who
are best because of their network of skilled friends, understanding of local
markets and more. Yes, it might require a standard contract to make European
or Chinese company have a finance subsidiary in the US to reassure US
investors… but dealing with that kind of complication is what YC is good at,
much better than any local equivalent.

I would hate to see YC come and unify how to make start-ups. Diversity is key,
certainly in something as creative as making companies happen. I was kind of
relieved when I noticed no one wrote that idea. But also disappointed: it
would be in YC spectacular interest to try.

------
sama
People seem to be trying to deliberately misunderstand my point.

1) I don't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta
test it. I think we are very likely to show success, which would hopefully
open it much more broadly. But I'd be very happy to do it together with other
investors from the beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included)
are not doing enough to push this issue.

2) I do think that investors should get a say in who gets startup visas. This
is no different than universities, big companies, or even the people who give
out Oscars deciding who is qualified to get one.

~~~
teacup50
> _1) I don 't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta
> test it._

This gives you a massive advantage compared to those of us who aren't VCs and
can't beta test it -- or founders that want to launch a company here, but lack
your blessing.

> _But I 'd be very happy to do it together with other investors from the
> beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included) are not doing
> enough to push this issue._

And what about those of us who don't sit in your privileged position, can't
secure H1B visas, and our companies suffer as a result?

> _I do think that investors should get a say in who gets startup visas. This
> is no different than universities, big companies, or even the people who
> give out Oscars deciding who is qualified to get one._

In all of those cases, the type of visa is opened up to a _class_ of person
who must be sponsored by a _class_ of organizations, not any one particular
organization.

Additionally, the relationship between the visa sponsor and the applying
individual in those circumstances is far, far, far less one-sided than it
would be between potential founder and stake-holding VC.

~~~
sbisker
>Additionally, the relationship between the visa sponsor and the applying
individual in those circumstances is far, far, far less one-sided than it
would be between potential founder and stake-holding VC.

I actually disagree with this statement - but agree with your point. There's a
reason why mediocre colleges can successfully charge exorbitant amounts of
money to rich international students, and it's not just the student:teacher
ratio. The student visa and OPT in the US are extremely powerful tools which
universities have both used and abused for many years.

------
tomasien
I fully appreciate the "reasonableness" of reducing the scope of what you're
asking for, but (as I'm sure you're aware) the US Government is much more
likely to grant 10,000 Startup Visas than to go through the process of
granting 100 to 1 group. That's like, the opposite of how they work - it shows
favoritism, it takes a lot of process for what seems like insignificant
results (whether the USG produces significant results or not, their numbers
are never in the hundreds of anything), etc.

I suggest continuing to pool resources and lobby for 10,000 - that is much
more likely to yield results.

------
foobarqux
If you want to write to policy makers in Washington then you should publish a
well written Op-Ed in the WSJ, NYT or WaPo, not a blog post.

------
blizkreeg
Why only YCombinator? You're not proposing a solution to the problem here.
You're proposing what YCombinator wants.

There are legitimate, promising founders and startups outside of YC too, you
know. Sorry about the snark..it's just aggravating when piecemeal, self-
serving solutions like this one are proposed.

------
ryandrake
A little tongue-in-cheek, but to co-opt some general immigration/visa catch
phrases:

1\. Why do we need to bring in immigrants to found companies? Do we have a
shortage of Americans already here who also want to start companies?

2\. Or, is Start-up Founder one of those jobs, like picking cabbage, that
Americans "just won't do"?

3\. Or, is it that American founders are demanding too much compensation?

~~~
kamaal
I haven't ever visited US. So I can't give a answer from your perspective.

>>1\. Why do we need to bring in immigrants to found companies? Do we have a
shortage of Americans already here who also want to start companies?

This is the equivalent of asking why large companies acquire start ups and
don't in house innovate their way out to compete in the market.

The answer is, the existing inertia is difficult to change in big
companies/countries. Plus people don't realize the importance of the
opportunity they have in hand. Imagine if people are that desperate to come to
US to just start a company, its obvious the thing called 'citizenship of the
US' is a very prized opportunity which most US citizens don't realize.

>>2\. Or, is Start-up Founder one of those jobs, like picking cabbage, that
Americans "just won't do"?

Starting up is difficult every where, but the US ecosystem is better in terms
of the overall equation.

First world country, VC's, Infrastructure etc etc

~~~
lhc-
Just to play devil's advocate, I'm not sure your answer to number 2 is
relevant. Sure, the US probably has the best ecosystem for starting a country,
but why would that lead to the idea that the US should let anyone who wants
come here to use it? Norway has a great health care system, but that doesn't
mean that they should allow anyone to emigrate there who is looking for good
medical coverage.

Also, for number 1, I dont think thats a fair comparison. If anything, the
recent startup culture in the US has proved that theres an enormous ability
here for citizens to start their own companies and fight against large, slow
moving corporations. Additionally, there is no shortage of US citizens trying
to start companies, who are well aware of the advantages. It seems like your
plea is more from the idea of "its not fair that the US is the best place for
this, so they should allow everyone to try it", which just is not how US
immigration policy works.

------
jw2013
Some points on my mind:

a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder
visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that.

b) Most non-immigrants already working (mostly with H1 visa) needs a founder
visa. To work on a startup you founded in H1b visa is hard, consider H1b visa
needs some funding/salary requirement on your startup, and that is hard to get
by on the early stage of a startup. Giving these people the visa may be
important to the U.S. economy consider that group of budding founders are with
the most experiences.

c) Maybe approval of founder visa won't be in the near future. Right now that
is really tangled with other messes in the Immigration Act, which seems
hopeless at the House in the stage.

d) Really +1 for founder visa. Can't afford to lose foreign entrepreneurs to
Canada.

~~~
pc
> _a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don 't really MUST need a founder
> visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that._

Founder of Stripe here. Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I feel
I should point out that OPT is far from ideal: it doesn't last very long, it
requires the job is related to the field of study, full-time work is permitted
only during vacations prior to completion of a degree, etc. Still, it can be a
useful stopgap in some cases, as you point out.

~~~
timtamboy63
It's also a MASSIVE pain, and some schools (like mine) only allow OPT for
internships (as opposed to CPT). As a result, I need to choose if I want to
intern for my four years of college, or if I want to start a startup.

~~~
jw2013
I agree with all of what you and Patrick said. Still most likely the student
on OPT is in a much better position to start a startup than most people on
H1b. Once you are hired by some company on H1b, you want to start your own
startup? You need to prove your startup is viable (some funding constraint +
providing prevailing wage for yourself I remember). But how you can have a
viable startup that has not even been started? That kind of chicken-and-egg
problem stuck tons of aspiring entrepreneurs on H1b.

Will really appreciate anyone here that can give some solution under current
circumstances.

------
iambateman
It's crazy to me that countries like Chile are courting (read: begging)
entrepreneurial talent and the US acts like we can throw a wall up around the
country and pretend like that's still a good thing.

NOT allowing a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking
entrepreneurs seems foolish.

~~~
stevewilhelm
Many of the millions of unemployed US citizens/voters would argue that there
are a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking
entrepreneurs in their ranks from which YC can choose.

~~~
iambateman
Sure, I'd add that the experience of living in a place like Singapore or Accra
changes the projects an entrepreneur attempts.

~~~
stevewilhelm
I am sure that is true. I was just pointing out that the goals and priorities
of the US federal government and YC aren't always perfectly aligned.

------
lifeisstillgood
I know it's somehow all about meeting people in bars in Silicon Valley, but
really, is it totally absolutely necessary to come and live in America to
start a new world beating company?

I work remotely, and do a fair job with my colleagues. Other more talented
people work and produce entire operating systems while on different
continents, and if you are working on something more worthwhile and less fad
driven than Facebook for dogs the surely surely you do not need a visa or a
relocation.

And if it is better/faster/easier today, why can't that be a reality tomorrow?

~~~
argonaut
The post is addressed to the US government. The US government by definition
has the interests of America first and foremost in mind, not the interests of
other countries. It is in America's interest to have all the world beating
companies started in America.

------
sprite
I really wish there was an easier way to be allowed to work and live in the US
as an entrepreneur. I completed both my Bachelor and Master degrees in the US
(both as valedictorian) and work as an independent app developer. I have a
vacation home and cars in the US but would love to stay there full time. Right
now my best bet is looking like EB-5 unless I can get in on either EB-1 or
EB-2. I wish they had some sort of VISA that let you freelance in the US/stay
self employed as long as you met some sort of income or minimum tax
requirements (for example your minimum taxable income must be $150k+/year).

------
aditya
They did make it easier to get an H1B visa as an entrepreneur:
[http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-
guide](http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide)

I'm not sure if anyone's ever successfully received one, however.

More here:
[http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-...](http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-
a-new-option-for-start-up-companies/)

~~~
tricolon
That USCIS guide is strange... it lists H1B only under "Nonimmigrant Visas"
even though the H1B is dual-intent.

~~~
bradleyjg
The H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. All dual intent means is that it doesn't
violate the terms of entry if you also intend to pursue permanent residence at
the same time -- but the H1B itself does not lead to permanent residence.

~~~
tricolon
Thanks for the clarification.

------
johnrob
Here is a counter proposal: the government should approve this request, but
stipulate that the immigrants relocate to somewhere other than silicon valley
(so all of the created jobs don't end up in the once place where they aren't
needed).

~~~
pc
1) You can't just allocate the startups in arbitrary locations and get the
same result -- being in SV changes the outcome. (I've tried to start companies
elsewhere.)

2) People benefit from Google, Facebook, Airbnb, etc., even if they're not in
SV. The immediate job creation is a _tiny_ fraction of the wealth created by
startups. It doesn't matter where Bell Labs was located; it just matters that
they did what they did. Similarly, we should just focus on creating more
Googles, not on which state's payroll taxes get the immediate boost.

~~~
_delirium
If the issue really is that SV specifically needs more people to start
companies, and having them do so elsewhere isn't possible or desirable, it
seems like a first cut at solving the problem could be made without even
changing visa regimes: just institute a program to convince more people from
elsewhere in the U.S. to move to SV and start companies. With >300m people,
most of whom don't yet live in the SF Bay Area, that's already a pretty large
supply to draw from.

------
pistle
I am pretty sure there are already mechanisms for the rich to buy US
citizenship. EB-5. Secure funding for your start-up, boom you're a US citizen
as soon as you invest in jobs, etc. in the US. The rich have their ways.

What if YC selected ~100 projects per year, gave each their $500k so they
could buy their way in...

~~~
argonaut
I doubt that is financially sustainable in any sense for YC, though.

------
SeoxyS
As somebody who fought for a year to get an O1 visa (and an EB-1 green card,
though that didn't quite work out), I can attest to the fact that the problem
is not that it is an investor vs. a government official that is deciding
whether one meets the criteria, but with the criteria themselves.

I had a top-notch immigration attorney, and a solid case. I was the first
employee of a company that now employs north of a hundred engineers and
generates tens of millions in tax revenue. By any definition of the phrase
"individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education,
business, or athletics," I am the kind of person that this visa was meant to
attract: talent that results in a net gain for the country.

The problem isn't with the government employees who review the cases; the
problem is with the criteria for the visa. It's stuck in a world where 40-year
old academics were the innovators. Where instead of showing product traction,
revenue, and ability to create businesses, you're expected to show published
papers, academic awards, or inclusion in conference panels. Sure, these are
still very valid reasons to want somebody to enter the US; but they shouldn't
be considered the only reasons.

Quite a few very valuable companies were founded by mavericks, dropouts, or
just people who stayed away from academia and instead worked on products. Elon
Musk, Steve Jobs, Zuck, the WhatsApp guys, the Airbnb guys. None of these guys
were academics. Some dropped out of college. None received nobel prizes, but
many had shown previous entrepreneurial success. The visa requirements give
this no consideration.

\--

The full list of requirements, of which you have to demonstrably meet at least
three:

1\. Documentation of the individual's receipt of nationally or internationally
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;

2\. Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field
for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in
their disciplines or fields;

3\. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major
media about the individual, relating to the individual's work in the field for
which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and
author of such published material, and any necessary translation;

4\. Evidence of the individual's participation on a panel, or individually, as
a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of
specialization to that for which classification is sought;

5\. Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, or business-
related contributions of major significance in the field;

6\. Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the
field, in professional journals, or other major media;

7\. Evidence that the individual has been employed in a critical or essential
capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished
reputation;

8\. Evidence that the individual has either commanded a high salary or will
command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by
contracts or other reliable evidence.

~~~
gamblor956
I hate to break it to you, but you clearly did not have a top-notch
immigration attorney if they advised you that a O1 visa was the best visa for
your circumstances.

The O1 is intended for people who are the _top_ of their fields; not just
those that are good. It's for people like Yao Ming (sports) or Lupita_Nyong'o
(arts) that we want to steal from other countries.

There were other visas that were more appropriate for your circumstances,
(meaning easier to obtain) but generally simply being the first employee at a
business doesn't amount to much, which is why you had to fight for it. (These
other visa types are no longer available.) If you had been a founder or a
C-suite officer, you might have been able to squeak in on a O1 [edit]without
any hassle[/edit], but even that is doubtful--the EB series would have been a
better path [edit] since EB review was more objective than the O1
review.[/edit]

~~~
kenneth
The EB visas are basically identical to the O visas, except for two
differences: 1) the requirements are slightly more stringent, and 2) they are
considered immigrant visas, as opposed to non-immigrant. ie., they are green
cards.

That said, I agree with you that the O1 was not a perfect fit for my
situation, though I did end up receiving it, while being denied the EB-1. But
I would challenge you to name another visa which would be more appropriate and
give me a better shot. Consider the fact that while I was critical in creating
a large business, I also did not have a completed college degree, or any
capital of my own to invest in the US.

~~~
boomzilla
Don't go for EB-1, go for EB-2. It's a lot easier in terms of the documented
requirements. Also, unless you are from China/India/Philippines there is no
difference in wait time between the two.

~~~
HistoryInAction
There is also the National Interest Waiver for entrepreneurship for the EB-2
to further make the process easier: [http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-
releases-topic/business-imm...](http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-
topic/business-immigration/employment-based-second-preference-immigrant-visa-
category-frequently-asked-questions-regarding-entrepreneurs-and-employment-
based-second-preference-immigrant-visa-category)

------
lancewiggs
I'd flip it. Rather than ask for 100 visas, ask for 100,000, then focus on the
benefits. That's going to attract a lot more attention.

100,000 visas will be at least 200 Dropboxes. 100,000 visas will be at least 1
million jobs. 100,000 visa will be at least $500 billion in value. (figures
completely made up, but the power of a big number is that statistics are on
your side, and these can be estimated from past performance of immigrants.
Bias will be there yes, but which way?)

Get a couple of tech entrepreneurs to 'guarantee' the 100,000 will deliver the
goods with a $1 billion bet that at least five of that crowd will be part of a
$1 billion company within 10 years.

And as others say - a visa is not enough, you need residency rights. Perhaps
let the visa automatically flip to a green card after 2 years if the company
that they found reached certain hurdles (value, revenue or vanity metrics).

But if you can't work or get residence in the USA, then come to New Zealand.
We have a visa points system, have huge demand for ICT people and have great
founder communities and companies. It's an incredible place to live, and when
you cash out there are no capital gains taxes here.

------
rdl
I wish government and big institutions in general were set up to allow testing
of hypotheses like this. We'd all be better off, but I fear what would happen
is one or two of those 100 visa people would do a company which fails (or
succeeds somewhat), gets in some minor unrelated legal problem (bar fight,
whatever), and then a politician uses it as an example of why immigration is
bad to tar their opposition.

~~~
HistoryInAction
Oh, it's even worse than you think. The visa category (J-1) I investigated
using for a similar proposal I pitched to 500 two years back is controlled by
a small industry of academia-affiliated shops to place foreign students.
DHS/USCIS farms out its selection process to these firms who have to sponsor
applicants.

Under the letter of the law, I proposed using J-1 visas (Specialist or Trainee
as appropriate,
[http://j1visa.state.gov/programs](http://j1visa.state.gov/programs)) via 500
for at least for founders from countries exempt from the two-year mandatory
return period. But the American Immigration Lawyers Association/American
Immigration Council had a staffer who explained the way things really work to
me in shooting down the proposal.

------
rdl
Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50
companies to a charity? That would more clearly separate out the "special
privilege for a private company" part of this proposal from the "we're testing
something of general applicability."

A domestic tech-industry/entrepreneurship inclusiveness effort, like 0-18yo
STEM education, would be a good choice.

~~~
teacup50
> _Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those
> 50 companies to a charity?_

It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely, and a special
privilege, so no.

On top of which, there are _serious_ ethical concerns around a early-stage
investors essentially controlling a founder's visa allocation and ongoing
status.

~~~
HistoryInAction
And yes, there is also political opposition from the left centered around the
extra control investors would have if they also determine the immigration
status of a founder. I don't understand that opposition, but I've run into it
a few times.

~~~
teacup50
You don't understand the ethical concerns related to having a huge negotiating
advantage granted and enforced by the US government?

You think that's a _leftist_ issue?

~~~
HistoryInAction
Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I've only heard that concern from political
professionals on the left, not that the concern itself was associated with one
side of the aisle or another.

And correct, I've never thought about the ethical concerns, so I'd be
interested in your explanation. Most of the investors I've worked with in this
space have already committed to invest in the startups dealing with
immigration problems, and so their interest is to salvage their investment and
stop it from being destroyed by the immigration system rather than negotiating
the investment in the first place.

In my defense, "certified VC/angel" sponsorship is a hypothetical proposal
that has very, very little traction in Congress, and that I've opposed in
favor of broad capital requirements (e.g. the Moran amendment, which I
supported:
[http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?Fil...](http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=893ec36f-1426-4fcc-9bc1-cc452db54fa9)
and some efforts by the US Chamber of Commerce that never made it into
legislative language)

Thanks!

------
huherto
Since everybody seems to be contributing ideas...I think immigration visas
should be awarded on a point based system similar to what it is done in
countries that are actively trying to attract immigrants. Education, Family
ties, employment history, language, health, financial resources, etc. The
current system looks at only one aspect exclusive of the rest.

------
kijin
> _Many will fail, of course, but one could be the next Google, Facebook,
> Airbnb, or Dropbox._

What makes you think the United States cares about the next Airbnb or Dropbox?
The policies of the Federal government are a (non-deterministic) function of a
lot of powerful interests and opinions, and many of those interests are
directly opposed to anything that threatens their outdated business models. As
if today's founders need any more reason to avoid doing business in the United
States.

I would much rather prefer startup accelerators like YC to expand into other
regions of the world. One season per year in the EU and another season in
Southeast Asia would be fantastic. Granted, many of these regions don't have
the advantage of the Bay Area's technical and human infrastructure, but is
that really such an insurmountable problem? We're startups, goddammit, it's
our job to do create things where none used to exist.

------
aganek
YC has proven that it is capable of returning results that beat the market.
Few other incubators are able to replicate the success of YC. As an incubator,
it is an outlier. Is an outlier a good "control" sample to prove that this
reform works?

Startup visa reform is a necessity, clearly. Founders have the opportunity to
make a strong positive impact on jobs, etc. I'd love for YC to be able to work
with additional talented founders. No question, I am all for giving YC access
to founder visas.

Question: Would a successful beta program at YC prove that the program works?
Or would it prove that YC works? If the latter, is there an alternative "beta"
program that would be more representative necessary for large scale reform?

------
rms
The Obama administration has said that something like a founder visa will
happen, but only as part of comprehensive immigration reform.

~~~
bruceb
And this is why "comprehensive immigration reform" needs to be dumped. Visa
and legalization are different issues and need to be considered on their own
merits.

------
bradleyjg
The system is so screwy. We have 50,000 visas a year given out in a lottery
system to any high school graduate without a criminal record from any country
except the 19 that send the most immigrants annually. 65,000 visas for
brothers and sisters of US Citizens. No limit at all on spouse, minor
children, and parents of US citizens 21 or older.

But only 41,000 professionals holding advanced degrees with job offers and
labor certifications, of which no more than 2900 can be from any one country.

I'm all for more total immigration, but if we are going to have the status quo
totals I'd much rather more EB-2s and fewer FB-4s, DVs, or even FB-IRs.

------
gambiting
"Startups are what the US is the best in the world at. We figure out new
businesses faster than anyone else. It would be disastrous if that stopped
being the case."

"Exploiting cheap labour is what <insert 3rd world country of choice here> is
the best in the world at. We figure out how to exploit our economy and people
faster than anyone else. It would be disastrous if that stopped being the
case"

Maybe US is best about startups - but I believe that in the long run its toxic
to everyone, including people involved in the process. Just because something
seems like a disaster doesn't mean that it has to be one.

------
tarunkotia
Since August 2011 "Entrepreneurs H1B" is available. I had posted this
commented just last week and I am adding this comment again. Here is my story:

I've started on this path just recently and believe me I am facing
difficulties at every step, even the the ones I thought were most obvious. But
again who said life was easy.

In case you are interested there are ways you can do business in the US on
H-1B visa. Is it easy? Hell no! But in case you are still interested keep
reading, feel free to reach out to me as I am going through this process right
now.

Articles about Entrepreneur H1B:

\-
[http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-...](http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-
a-new-option-for-start-up-companies/)

\- [http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-
imm...](http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-
immigration/questions-answers-uscis-issues-guidance-memorandum-establishing-
employee-employer-relationship-h-1b-petitions)

-[http://blog.uscis.gov/2011/08/encouraging-entrepreneurs-and-...](http://blog.uscis.gov/2011/08/encouraging-entrepreneurs-and-high.html)

\- [http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-
guide](http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide)

Further reading:

\- [http://blog.fosterquan.com/2012/12/09/the-sweet-smell-of-
suc...](http://blog.fosterquan.com/2012/12/09/the-sweet-smell-of-
success-h-1b-visas-for-entrepreneurs/)

Success story of Vishal Shah from Traffio:

\- [http://www.nextbigwhat.com/how-to-startup-in-silicon-
valley-...](http://www.nextbigwhat.com/how-to-startup-in-silicon-valley-297/)

Business Entity:

\- [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12qxuo_how-to-open-a-
busin...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12qxuo_how-to-open-a-business-in-
us-types-of-business-entities_travel)

------
keerthiko
My proposal would instead be a pair of visas: A proper "Entrepreneur Visa,"
that is similar to the existing EB-category ones that require your company to
have received a certain threshold of funding. However, I think this funding
should be tuned by industry, and typically, _any_ level of funding is good, so
this should be low. If necessary, a clause stipulating maximum percentage of
non-US hires (or additional taxes/fees if otherwise) should be ok.

More importantly, an "Entrepreneur Trial" visa should be in place. This should
be a 1-year visa, which should just require a few letters of recommendation,
qualification in the field (academic degree or equivalent work experience from
any country), and function like an OPT. The earlier mentioned visa (the
Entrepreneur visa) should be made trivially obtainable (quick filing of
paperwork) by an applicant who is on the Trial visa if he fulfills the minimum
funding requirement. Preferably the trial visa has a system to petition for an
extension of 6-12 months.

This is still very much limiting the options for an immigrant founder, but of
course, we can't assume they will ever have as much freedom as a US person
when trying to bend the rules of life. It would still be nice to have _some_
options that don't involve trying to bend over backwards and lick someone
else's rearside to be allowed to contribute to the economy.

------
bsder
No. No visas. If we want these people, give them a green card.

I'm tired of watching the games around immigrant visas.

------
TTPrograms
Could a weird sort of setup be created where YCombinator "hired" entrepreneurs
and then gave them traditional work visas? I'm not really familiar with the
specifics of how visas work, but I would think it would be possible to
construct a situation such that the desired founders would be eligible.

------
jackylee0424
As an O1 status holder, this does make sense, especially for PhD founders
(PhDs are supposed to be the top of their own field). O1 approval is fast
(premium processing is about two weeks). In my experience, document
preparation is depending on two major factors: 1\. applicant's records such as
media coverage, publications/citations, reference letters, and awards. I
fortunately accumulated some evidences for each of these when doing my PhD. I
only have less than half of reference letters compared to my friends who got
their EB1, so I think media and awards could be equally important. 2\.
experienced attorney who can put together a 2-inch-thick document in a short
time (of course, it depends on the applicant to gather the materials).

------
hbharadwaj
A founder's visa should be opened up to a class of people. In this beta
testing case, it would be open to a class of people who get selected with YC
or are interested in YC. That's a very limited view from a governance
perspective. The only ones who should have such power are USCIS and Consulate
Officers. USCIS should work with incubators for the judging criteria. There
should be another criteria for start ups who want to go without a sponsoring
incubator as well.

In addition, not sure what the visa status will be during the three month
funding cycles. That alone limits a lot of options. A F-1 student or a H1B
employee cannot create a start up and apply to YC even though they are in US
because they can't leave their status for 3 months.

------
nirvanatikku
"Maybe he was too ambitious in asking for 10,000 startup visas per year." hmm,
lowering expectations a couple of orders of magnitude for a highly selective
group? i'm a fan of YC and all, and agree that it'll probably end up being the
cream of the crop thus a great likelihood to succeed, but i really do wish
this issue was tackled properly - its so painful. I'd personally love to build
something here (happily even with my own capital) but can't. I appreciate the
call for action, though, but man - trying to immigrate here is rough.. when
the conversation becomes 'let us just prove it with 100', while time keeps
ticking on.. i wonder if anything will really happen.

------
trustfundbaby
How about just giving them a visa if they can secure VC funding in the United
States enough to support them in their efforts for a year or two.

Also reforming the h1b visa might help, since most immigrants are highly
motivated to start their own businesses ... allowing h1bs more easily start
businesses (currently you have to have someone, an American citizen, have some
sort of controlling interest in your business for it to be a viable means of
employment), have time after losing a job to find another one (currently you
have to leave immediately after you're fired/laid off).

------
wtpiu
This is a JOKE. Let Y Combinator? Oh yeah, bro? Wow. If the US were to give
ONE company this right, that would be complete b _llsh_ t. I like YC, but
think before you speak.

~~~
midas007
Definitely disagree. 'sama has clarified that he meant YC would volunteer to
beta test it. Probably the fairest way would be for govt to take applications
and select X at random.

------
dude_abides
I wonder how many of the negative commenters on this thread are either
citizens or permanent residents. I don't see why a techie who is not yet a
citizen or permanent resident of US, and wants to be one, would be so negative
about this proposal.

At worst this can lead to a few lucky immigrant founders who get free visas,
but at best, this can do a lot of good to the country in terms of creating new
jobs, and to the startup ecosystem (and to YC -- so what!).

~~~
falsestprophet
Mercifully, foreigners don't elect our legislators.

~~~
pm24601
Thanks to Citizen United that allows corporations ( "corporations are people,
too, my friend" \- Mitt Romney)

Yes foreigners can influence our politics

------
cenhyperion
>If founders from elsewhere want to pay taxes and create jobs in the US, we
should let them.

Spot on.

>This is just a start. We are also in need of broad-based immigration reform,
and I believe more immigrants will help our country.

This is really what needs to happen. Shameless plug, I'm on the code squad at
[http://fwd.us](http://fwd.us) and this is what we're trying to do.

I think Sam is doing great work advocating to bring more founders here to the
U.S.

------
zxcvvcxz
I think this is a good idea for investor and tech entrepreneurs (building a
business in US opens a ton of capital opportunities), but I think it's
fundamentally at odds with immigration and popular opinion, and thus the
effect on policy, in the United States.

Here's the argument:

The US is tough on immigration because supposedly immigrants will take
American jobs. American people - which we'll broadly define as the "middle
class" who statistically speaking don't have these tech skills - don't want
this. Why would they want foreigners taking their jobs? It makes no sense.
Thus they will vote, or have political influence, tending to enact policy that
is tough on immigration.

Founder visas for tech companies with the intention of creating jobs does not
change this, because it creates _tech_ jobs. Middle class America can't
fulfill this in meaningful-enough numbers for there to be any positive
political influence.

"Let us show you what we can do with 100 visas. This will be measurable, and
in 5 years, we can tell you exactly how many jobs get created."

This won't matter much until jobs get created in large enough numbers for the
middle class. What's important though will be (and it's hard to tell if this
is the case) a "trickle-down" effect, where these relatively small number of
tech jobs created lead to the creation of other jobs that have a meaningful
impact. EDIT - an example that comes to mind is Homejoy, which creates more
maid jobs... but boy oh boy can this sort of thing sound like inequality ("let
foreign founders come in to make web services turning Americans into maids!").

Think about it - even if a new Google pops up in the next 5 years - that's 25K
jobs. Drop in the ocean. 2.2M jobs were created in 2012; let's say in 5 years
10M jobs are created. 25K new tech jobs for a new Google represents a
difference of 0.25%. I guess that's something - but how many of those 25K jobs
will be filled by American citizens?

In short - there's absolutely no reason not to have a founder visa like
proposed. That would be sweet. But from the policy makers' perspectives, it
doesn't look like there's a compelling enough reason to change the status quo.
If anything it's just easy to paint as "let rich investors bring in foreign
engineers to build new websites and apps". Doesn't really resonate.

Feel free to point out flaws in this argument, it would probably help the OP's
cause. I made my post purposely cynical, because these are the sort of
opinions and spins that will need to be addressed.

------
ballard
Btw if anyone needs complex (and which isn't) representation, Rajat Kuver is a
super cool dude with offices in Palo Alto and Cupertino. Also a law prof.
(Super cool, like it says on the tin.)

[http://www.advancedimmigrationsolutions.com/ourservices.php](http://www.advancedimmigrationsolutions.com/ourservices.php)

------
iagooar
Conquer a new land, send thousands of people, nearly exterminate the native
population, put up walls so nobody else can get in.

Sounds legit.

------
azifali
I am not sure why YC should get the opportunity to get 100 entrepreneurs get
startup visas.

Why not open the level playing field and allow ANY entrepreneur to get such a
visa? There are plenty of Dropbox / Airbnb companies that are getting built,
going public or getting sold outside of YC.

------
mikegalarza
I recently wrote a piece about this issue: How I hacked my US startup visa
[http://qz.com/151333/how-i-hacked-my-us-startup-
visa/](http://qz.com/151333/how-i-hacked-my-us-startup-visa/)

------
saltyknuckles
Did we really run out of Americans who are capable of being founders?

~~~
tarikjn
Do you live on this planet? It's about competitiveness. It's not just about
being able to be a founder, if there is a foreigner doing the same product
with more success, the American's startup will eventually die. So foreign
countries can get all the best talent with their flexible visa systems,
including Americans, while America only has access to local talent. That's not
really pro-American...

------
joesmo
What are the qualifications for such a visa? Would this be for founders who
have already secured funding (and thus their own salary)?

~~~
lachyg
The qualification is acceptance into YC as a founder.

> So here is a proposal for the US government: please let Y Combinator help
> allocate up to 100 visas to founders per year.

------
jedanbik
Why would Y-Combinator deserve this special treatment by the US government?
Since when does money == oversight?

------
foobarqux
What visas are being mainly used now?

------
wtpiu
Hey, sam, great idea... how about you ask the US to give these 100 visas to
ANOTHER firm first, if you really believe it. Otherwise, you sound like a
selfish douche.

~~~
sama
I actually ran the idea by a few other firms and they didn't seem quite as
interested in international founders as we are.

We're willing to do the work on this. If others are, that'd be fine with us
too. We just don't want to wait 5 more years for anything to happen.

~~~
rdl
I suspect davemcclure/500 Startups would be totally on board with this;
they're almost MORE international focused than YC is.

~~~
ntoshev
Almost more international == just a little less international

~~~
rdl
I meant almost in the sense of "possibly", as in YC is international in the
range of 0.2-0.4 and 500 is in the range 0.25 - 0.45 or something. And that YC
still has a greater number/quality of international startups, even if 500 has
a greater percentage, partially because YC has been around longer and has had
a few big successes (Team Ireland at Stripe is worth more than all of 500
combined, and possibly more than TechStars, although Digital Ocean might test
that).

------
leccine
Sam Altman's assumption is that the US government reasonable. :)

~~~
taybin
And that VCs are reasonable.

------
NextUserName
Visas? you are talking about bringing in people from other countries to start
companies here right? Is this because there is not enough founders born in the
US? Wow, I go to a coffee shop in bay area and everyone there assumes that I
am some kind of startup founder. Everyone is talking about their company they
started and asks their neighbors what they are founding. IT is really quite
annoying. We really need more of this? I guess the more that is thrown against
the wall, the more has a chance of sticking huh? What about those imports who
make it, thwarting the native born competitor's company by a small margin? Now
you have hurt the native for a ever so slightly better product or perhaps one
that just made it to market slightly earlier. 10,000 more startups a year than
now? Really? This can't be good.

