Personally, I think the more wealth and brains we have in the country the better, but $100K seems cheap enough to invite lots of shady cases.
I could start the "Visa Arbitrage Angel Fund" that only makes $100K investments into startups with $20K+ in the bank, then require the startup buy me out one week after closing for $120K (or make monthly payments of $10K for a year, or some other wacky clause that makes my investment an awful loan instead of a real investment). Now we've invented a way for foreigners with $20K to buy a visa.
The proposed program would make more visas available to
entrepreneurs who have at least $250,000 in funding from a
U.S.-based venture capital firm, or $100,000 in angel funding.
The startup visa seeks to change the EB-5 visa to include people who aren't wealthy, but would also create jobs in the US by starting viable companies.
This is an interesting link. I always wondered how much money I would need to buy my way into permanent residency in any country in the world. (I am assuming that the USA is among the most difficult -- those with expertise, please correct me if I'm wrong.) It's one of those useful benchmarks for how rich "rich" is.
The price is high, but not astoundingly high, if I'm reading this right. You need $500k in capital that you're willing to invest in "certain qualified investments or regional centers with high unemployment rates". You don't even necessarily have to lose the $500k, or even lose anything. You just need the capital.
Interesting, but as I understand it this $500 is supposed to be your real pension, not some other form of income, thus requiring most of visitors of HN to wait some half a century until retirement in Panama :)
You probably could - and one could make the argument that someone that industrious is exactly the kind of person you'd want.
However, the visa status is contingent on the company following through with its business plan to create X job and/or take in $1M of revenue. If the company isn't doing that (or if "the investment in the commercial enterprise was intended solely as a means of evading the immigration laws of the United States" - which seems like it would cover what you're describing), the visa gets pulled and the deportation process begins.
One can also imagine that INS would keep a very tight leash on the program in its first few years to make sure this isn't happening.
Interesting idea, but won't this allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the States?
how is that different from:
The current system grants 10,000 visas each year primarily to investors that have financed over $1 million with plans to create at least 10 full-time positions.
In my province there was a similar program, Provincial Nominee Program or PNP, an immigrant would invest $200,000 in a local business plus give a $25,000 deposit to the provincial government and the immigrant investor's citizenship request would be fast-tracked.
After living here for a year they were supposed to get the deposit back, but they didn't.
Even worse is the majority of the people who benefited were the same politicians who set up the program.
Now it's a huge scandal and the police are involved, large amounts of money plus politicians and there's a scandal, imagine that!
The only comment I would add to this is pg's quote at the end of the article "I think this would have such a visible effect on the economy that it would make the legislator who introduced the bill famous," says Graham. "The only way to know for sure would be to try it, and that would cost practically nothing."
Unfortunately...that's not true. It might cost no money, but it could cost the congressmen and senators their job at the next mid-term elections. Immigration reform is a hot-button topic, so as much as it would be a great thing to do, it might be politically untenable right now.
Note: I am a foreigner, that would definitely want to take advantage of this program if the bill is passed and it is implemented. Just commenting on the quote :)
Timeline seems highly appropriate for me since I graduate from college in 2 years (since I am on a student visa). Maybe I will be able to stay in the US and work on my startup as I want to (during the best years of my life) than sell my soul for a corporate job.
I have to disagree, at least anecdotally. I know several people, whom I'm pretty sure don't have to work if they don't want to. Yet they moved to the US specifically in order to start companies. And even they, rich, educated folk from "good" countries have had ridiculous amounts of trouble getting visas and work permission.
One thing the stats don't show, and I'm quite curious about, are those who are wealthy but seek greater (or even continue to seek) opportunities. The bulk of taxes don't tax wealth - they tax income (and gains on wealth like capital gains, interest and dividends get treated differently depending on where you go). Perversely, the rich have the luxury then to be subsidized for certain parameters because they don't need to pay for what they see as the benefits of living in that given place.
For this reason, you can get some remarkable statements like the year that Warren Buffett said something to the effect that there is something wrong with a system when his secretary gets taxed as a percent more than he does. Of course, we later learned this was somewhat disingenuous given most of his income wasn't personal income at all but dividends (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ec...).
This being said, how is your comment relevant to the startup visa? The idea as I understand it would be to attract those without money but who need it from VC's - and as you say, the US is often the destination of choice for those like that. The point being to attract great entrepreneurs from countries that don't welcome them - at least a number of countries being a case in point: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095&... - "In one 2005 poll, just 36 percent of French citizens said they supported the free-enterprise system, the only one of 22 countries polled that showed minority support for this cornerstone of global commerce. In Germany, meanwhile, support for socialist ideals is running at all-time highs—47 percent in 2007 versus 36 percent in 1991."
Maybe an option to encourage startups is to offer a tax break for the first 12-24 months, if they create x (5 or 10) jobs.
Irrespective of if the founders are US Citizen or Permanent residents.
The problem with this is the potential for massive gaming. The argument of non-startups would be why should they be penalized for having hired people before this period or are considering laying them off and would not otherwise be viable without the tax advantage?
Ideally they would make the tax incentives permanent - ie reduce payroll taxes if the goal is to increase employment, but I think the startup visa is a much more interesting alternative as it seeks to attract talent that traditionally is difficult to define but is so important to how vibrant an economy is. In theory, just the fact these people bring viable ideas that people want to fund should be sufficient irrespective of jobs they create.
Forgive my ignorance, but can you explain how Microsoft games the system with H1-B's?
re: tax breaks for increasing the number of employees, here's a fairly balanced posting on the subject: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/would_a_payroll_tax_... - of course on a more fundamental level, payroll taxes always has struck me as odd considering essentially it's a tax on companies for hiring folks.
For me, a permanent reduction would be a far greater incentive to hire people because at least for me, I hope that I am hiring someone for more than a year or two which is when presumably the tax breaks would expire.
I am tempted sometimes to start a company in the US just due to it's market and social access to places like silicon valley. But I do not want to become a US citizen since they tax their citizens globally, no matter where they are in the world, no matter where they make their income. If I'm living somewhere that the US does not have a tax treaty with, and making all of my income there, I don't want to give anything I make over 80'000 to the US govt. Hell people give up their US citizenship to just avoid this. But your still on the hook (somehow? It doesn't make sense if you revoked citizenship) for 10 years after that. And there is a wealth tax for giving up the citizenship right after.
It's possible that it will end up being a 'conditional permanent residence' that you have to renew after 2 years (the condition being that you still have the company). This is what happens for green cards that are granted on the basis of a new marriage.
I could start the "Visa Arbitrage Angel Fund" that only makes $100K investments into startups with $20K+ in the bank, then require the startup buy me out one week after closing for $120K (or make monthly payments of $10K for a year, or some other wacky clause that makes my investment an awful loan instead of a real investment). Now we've invented a way for foreigners with $20K to buy a visa.