NO.  Just NO.  Not a good idea, IMHO.  How would this would strengthen the economy?  By creating jobs that will go to more immigrants here on VISA's?  Don't we have enough economic problems already?

This may help those "venture capitalists" and an immigrant who is here on a VISA alright.  And it may also open paths to monies winding up somewhere besides here, that should remain here to start with (in the US).

.02

I completely disagree.  In the Silicon Valley, our most high valued companies are Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and Zynga.  In other words, 2 of them are nothing but sales databases, one is a news source, and one is a gaming company. 

That's not innovation. I think now is the perfect time to be forward thinking in development.  The rest of the world has already coded their own versions of these social networks.  I think it's naive not to pursue a more diverse think tank of ideas. 

For those that think this is a bad idea, remember that the Kinect (the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history) was born from a company created in Israel.  

There is an entire world of investors out there.  The monies do not have to come from the U.S., at our expense, in the long run.

LC (Life's Good) has some fantastic products and that company is in Korea.  No one is trying to close the door on international trade here.

This is about cold hard cash.  Investors can be found in plenty of places outside the U.S.

THIS kind of legislation does not lead to innovation.  It leads to hiding monies from the tax man.  Monies that then have to be taken from the working public. 

The legislation is not about innovation.

eCommerce is a WORLD WIDE MARKET!

How does a VC's PRIVATE CAPITAL (As in money THEY EARNED ALL BY THEMSELVES) affect the American individual?  Show me a correlation between VC spending and economic turmoil and I will concede my point to you. 

This legislation is not about keeping foreign entrepreneurs in their own country and simply sending money to them.  It's about bringing them here, allowing them the chance to set up an office AND EMPLOY PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE JOBS!

At this point, bringing in foreign entrepreneurs should seem very attractive to anyone that hopes to improve the growing margin of unemployment.  Especially the 10.2% unemployment rate within the Silicone Valley alone. Or, are we still waiting on our good ol' President to fix that problem?

What if Einstein had not been given asylum in the 40's? 

------------

I think it's worth noting that tech companies in general tend to seek private funding. Banks aren't keen on risks like that.

That commentator is out of her mind.Why does it matter if the entrepreneur is foreign born, any start-up will create new jobs in the US. It already stipulates you need an H1-B visa which is easy to keep current ensuring long term stay in the country anyway. It will make it easier for those visa holders who want to start their own companies the ability to do so without being tied down to their current employer only. Or for prior F-1 visa holders (like myself) to return to the country where they spent a small fortune in tuition fees to start a company and employ people. How could this ever be a bad thing? /rant

This is contributing to the grossly mishandled immigration laws to start with.  I am not against legal immigration, nor am I against VCists investing in ideas from those living in the US on VISA's of any kind.  Immigration law is complicated beyond reasoning.  WHY add to the confusion?  We DO NOT NEED more laws that allow for special circumatances.  We do need an overall over haul, altogether to aid immigrants and serve the country in the same movement.

Any investment in a developing company is likely to have some characteristics of a tax shelter.  The cost of borrowed capital (to invest) is a deductible expense in most countries (if structured properly) and that returns (and payment of the tax on that $) are deferred until an investment is realized. Take a look at the tax-privileged venture capital investment companies and tell me this has no impact on the tax hikes of others.

While an entrepreneur may add 3 to 50 jobs (maybe 100's later but NOT right away) in the two years, what happens if the company goes bust?  And what happens to the people who filled those temp jobs?

Innovation is good: Special immigration laws regarding innovation are not.  They are using "innovation" as a catch phrase.

The venture capitalists are behind this law.  Have you asked WHY? More than to say, "what a great idea!"

The Startup Visa Act Must Be Stopped

HEART Act Has Unintended Outcome for Legal Immigrants

Too bad there is no "unlike" button on the comment box ... I may suggest the idea to the Softcity dev team :)

From my point of view, this is a really good idea. USA need more initiatives like that to re-initiate the "innovation" flame !

Totally agree Seb.

I guess you have to look beyond the politicians smiles, the rhetoric , and the first few paragraphs of a proposed bill to understand the real issues at stake. :)

It is clear to me the mechanicals between one concern to the other is almost the same specially when talking about immigration. Because, we would never agreed on the beneficiary (if we are not part the innovation); he being the person looking for a new job after graduation or the one who just got lied off after 25th years of services in the same position carrying the hope of reaching a retire age of 65 now 67. Perhaps; the company which spends thousands of dollars researching and surveying the people while simultaneously pulling money across continents by defining the odds cheap labor, less taxes, and great invest is not the one to blame other than those that don’t believe in royalty and early retirement for life (not pointing fingers).

The true is we needed a change in office and we got it, we disagreed with some of it but we are learning to live with it, now we need a change of cash venue and right now the goal is across sea. And, because we got accustom to our survivors kit we forgot how to walk yet; we should now learn to swim (what better way than back to basic).

On the other hand this country was build with immigrants and after many years of living here it makes no difference where you end up as longs as you could continue to live. Hence, I believe the start-up visas is not a bad idea yet; is too soon and not fear to say it’s a cleaver way to shift money without getting the job done (fewer job more aids). Therefore if there is an accountability and transparency structure we could fairly say both jurisdictions will serve better since there is an exit and entrance to protect both side of the equation as we will notice soon or later.

Politics brings out the worst in people. How this could possibly be spun (speaking of rhetoric and politician's smiles/tans) to be a bad thing boggles my mind. 

We are in a time of destructive irrationality and fear that stifles progress. Too many are suffering from ODS, and it is blocking their ability to see clearly. 

I am 110% in favor of startup visas.

Try un-boggling with this...

The Startup Visa ( FYI - HR 1114 IH ) is also being tied to the H-1B:

"@ Sec. 2 (a)(2)(6)(A)(5)(II)(ii)(I)"‘(aa) hold an unexpired H1-B visa; or..."

 What do you know about H-1B? Have you heard of Sanjay Mavinkurve? The Google engineer?  Read his sad, but true, story here:

Tech Recruiting Clashes With Immigration Rules

A snippet from Sanjays story:

"He has a visa to work in the United States, but his wife, Samvita Padukone, also born in India, does not. So he moved to Canada."

THEN, read what the experts say about Sanjays story:

Skilled Guest Workers, American Jobs

Many of the abuses under H-1B have now been identified and you will be surprised at the huge corporations involved in working inside the law to cheat these people:

"Employees made to pay H1-B sponsorship costs - Although the practice is unlawful, it is widely believed that some employers make their H1-B employees pay for most; all; or in excess; of the costs associated with sponsoring and processing an H1-B application. These fees are usually under the guise of bond or other instruments, in an attempt to serve as a legal workaround to the law."

Ron Hira is assistant professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology and co-author of “Outsourcing America.”:            Unanswered Questions - Snippets:

"There is broad support for policies to welcome the best and brightest to come to the U.S. and settle permanently. But it should be done in a way that is fair to both foreign and American workers. The article says little about the critical decisions that should shape permanent immigration policy for skilled workers."

"...Rather than address these issues, which the featured Google worker faces, the article delves into H-1B policy, but ignores fundamental problems corrupting the H-1B program. As we know, employers regularly exploit loopholes in that program to pay below-market wages, drive Americans out of their jobs, force some to train foreign replacements and take advantage of the vulnerable position of foreign workers. Closing those loopholes can be done without losing the best and brightest.The workers who are hurt by these tactics — which are, in fact, legal — don’t have high-priced lobbyists representing them in Washington yet their story is just as important."

And the American Worker...

Glossing over the downside by John Miano

"What about the U.S. workers who are replaced with lower-paid foreign workers at Pfizer, Chrysler, Nielson, Bank of America and other companies? What about the 21 percent violation rate that the Department of Homeland Security found in the H-1B program?

When a U.S. worker gets fired and replaced by a foreign worker and is told to train his replacement to collect a severance package; the vast majority of Americans will agree that such a worker has a legitimate gripe with the immigration law."

Norman Matloff is a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis.

A Law Riddled With Loopholes: "...Though the lobbyists claim that the financial industry needs such temporary guest workers to help the industry recover, institutions like the Bank of America have an abominable track record of replacing Americans with foreign workers."

~~~~~

Filed under Political - MISC:

 Bill gives in-state tuition to foreign professionals, families in Washington on visa

If you've been living under a rock you may have missed this:

The Greedy Gates Immigration Gambit

This was not that long ago so many people remember not only the instance but the repercussions.

~~

AND try reading anything by Thomas Sowell but this one in particular:

Dismantling America: and other controversial essays 

It is one of the newer books.

~~

Keep up with unemployment here:

US Unemployment rates up to date charts.

~~~~~

H-1B Is Just Another Gov't. Subsidy

"When the government supplies non-U.S. workers to an industry, that's a subsidy. When those workers accept minor-league wages, that's a big subsidy. When those outsiders want a benefit that can be supplied only by the government, like a green card, even regulations intended to protect U.S. workers can skew the labor market against citizens."

"IT lobbyists ill serve the industry by perpetuating the failed regulations of the H-1B and green-card programs, which could be replaced with a market system that would deliver green cards as fast as they're paid for. But laying off thousands of U.S. citizens and green-card holders while retaining "temporary" foreign workers adds fuel to a growing anger. So call the H-1B visa what it is: a subsidy that runs counter to the real interests of both IT workers and free-market thinkers." 

~~~~~

H4 Visas - To the Contrary

Please spend the almost 9 minutes for the video - You will see some debate after the first 4 1/2 minutes. H4 is for the family members of holders of H-1B.

~~~~~ 

There is not much opposition to this bill online.  WHY?  Because two years ago... OH poop, just read it for yourself:

Court orders three H-1B sites disabled

So those who spoke out against (however irrationally) H-1B have been silenced. 

~~~~~

But there is this on the Startup Visa:

Can the Startup Visa Act Spur Tech Innovation in the U.S.?

"There have been two main criticisms of the Visa Stamp Act throughout the debate. One is that it gives the investor too much power over the entrepreneur. To begin with, says Moore, investors always have the power. “If you don’t think so, you’re delusional,” he said. But more importantly, Moore noted that entrepreneurs and investors are fundamentally aligned, particularly at the beginning of the process. They both want to see the company succeed.

The other main criticism is that the requirements are unreasonable and the stakes are too high. Will foreign entrepreneurs really be willing to risk their time and money knowing that, if they don’t succeed, they face deportation?"

~~~~~

Venture Capitalist Trusts

"VCT’s investments are supposed to be mainly for start-up companies. This means that you cannot go and invest in ICI or even some other sort of big public company that is trading on the Stock Market. Instead you have to invest in small, start-up businesses, that means there could be a significant risk to your investment. 

However the risk is offset by generous tax breaks, and are typically aimed at medium to high net worth individuals. The VCT managers typically hold 30% of the investment in interest bearing accounts or bonds to reduce the investment risk. This means only 70% of the money is at risk and some income is generated from the interest bearing investments."

"All the dividends that are paid out of the VCT are totally exempt from tax. Therefore, if you invest into a VCT that is successfully generating an income and paying out dividends then you have a zero tax liability on the amount of dividend you receive."

"If you sell the shares in the VCT after having owned them for a minimum of five years, then there is also no tax to pay on any profit made. In other words, the gain is totally free from any capital gains tax liability."

~~~~~

The specialty visa's out there number close to 100 and that does not include green card applicants. To get a green card a foreign national MUST have lived in his home country for the past 10 years, then apply to the US for the green card, which takes another 2 years to process, minimum.

So those who went to school and lived here, in the US on Visa's have a devil of a time applying for the green card.  They can get an H-1B (six years if extended) but under that they are tied to the company and it's whims, for the most part.  Oh, and wife and children can enter the country with them by getting an H-4 but cannot work, get a drivers license, etc. (video above, somewhere).

This bill (the startup visa) adds to an already convoluted immigration system that should be over hauled BEFORE more specialty visa bills are written.

Not irrational and not fearful; just not on a side that places more wealth and power in the wrong hands (corporations and banks). And this will lead to that.

The Startup Visa's seem like a dream come true for many.  BUT as the abuses mount up, and there will be plenty, only in hindsight will it be known.  By then, it will be too late.

When I read that the Startup Act is being sponsored by venture capitalist concerns what I saw was (no doubt in my mind) a debacle that will eventually strip some very bright young people out of their ideas and their dream come true company as well. Not to mention deportation, after the fact. 

~~~~~

And that's all I have to say about that.

I get VCT's, BCD's and RIT's confused.  Any rate there are some very lucrative reasons to risk the kind of capital the startup visa requires. There are some taxes applicable, but not what you would expect. Most VC investments are set up as tax shelters to begin with.

Ignore the VCT portion of the previous post as it does not apply to investors in the USA. Sheesh.

So I guess you're for the tax penalties on startups like Twitter as well?  Here's the thing, it sounds like based on your extensive research, that the immigrant is really the one laying it all on the line.  As with any type of social program, there are going to be loopholes, but from what I've seen much of the counter argument for immigrant employees is coming from the unskilled labor population. 

With any type of risk, you get a tax break in this country.  You can weigh your deductions out and figure out what your own best option is, but I'm willing to bet there are more than a few individuals (not just VC's) that "start" a company for themselves strictly for tax break purposes.  

I do not agree with tax cuts for the wealthy, but that's not the issue here.  The issue is whether or not companies should be allowed to sponsor skilled laborers from other country, and for me the answer is yes.  This is no different from any other new job reform that Obama has been asking for lately.  It means tax cuts for a corporation, but it also means that new jobs get created. 

There is definitely a trade off, and someone stands to get richer off the deal.  Seriously though, when is someone not getting rich off of new legislation?  This bill is once again NOT talking about sending jobs overseas, it's NOT asking for contractors over seas to bring entire teams, it's granting temporary citizenship to anyone willing to take a risk on an idea. 

Last time I checked, that's what America was supposed to be founded on. 

here's the bill in their own words

Here are arguments on why it would help entrepreneurship

And the bill was revised.  The requirements were apparently too high (but seriously, you try raising this kind of capital and sticking to these kinds of regulations)

Huff Po's take on the bill, really good read

Just sayin, this bill isn't exactly a "free ride" for anyone. 

No, Richard.  

WHAT I am against is legislation that leads to conflict. As evidenced in this thread.

Legislation that ADDS to the convoluted mess that immigration has become.  

~~~~~

Yeah, I read the Huff Po article the day it was posted. Vivek Wadhwa has some good insights but even he could not foresee the abuses of H-1B before the fact. 

All anyone has to do to get a "nod" is read Vivek.  Sometimes (not always) he's right, until he is proven wrong by big CORP AMER running amok within the constraints of what is legal and what is not. 

So now the requirements are better for the Startup Visa. At least on the side of the immigrant $$ involvement.  I will hope it works well, but will not hold my breath.  I do not see a silver lining because of the backing this bill has behind it.

:)

This bill is called "Startup Visas" it has nothing to do with corporate America. H-1B, while related, is still a separate issue.

-----

Edit: If the logic here is "kill the bill because it complicates immigration," then there will never be progress.  Any bill offering any kind of sanctuary for any reason would complicate immigration.

I'm sorry, but I can't get behind this kind of attitude.  You want to talk about complicated legislation, tell me why it's so hard to fire a bad teacher (could take years)?  This is a separate issue, but my point is there are far better ways to attack the deficit problem than allowing tax cuts for VC's willing to invest on the off chance that they can help create American jobs.

How about we deal with those that don't do their jobs properly before we start criticizing people who add to society. 

-----

Second Edit: The requirements were lowered to $100,000 in capital raised (as opposed to $250,000)  plus the entrepreneur in question must show evidence of revenue and job creation. 

You're right Richard, but only up to a point.  I've been talking about "bad legislature" designed for reasons other than what is made public.

Your reference to "getting rid of bad teachers" is a prime example of the lobbying efforts of teachers that prevents getting rid of the bad apples. 

Innovation and adding to society --- good.

Rushing legislation through without thought to long term consequences --- very very bad.

Why even mention or tie this legislation to H-1B?  Which has been bad for many.

This just happens to be a bill that came along at a very inopportune time.  A time when abuses have been found and reported by the thousands.  Like much else that happens in our capitol, details are left out; details that allow the holes that later allow the dam to break.

I am suspicious of all new legislation. At my age, the abuses that come later, matter to me now.  You know?

That I can agree to.  Together, I think we both provided more than enough information for someone to make a sound decision on this issue.  I appreciate the debate, it's been a good one. =)

Hi Richard.

I have to say, I was a tad disappointed that some of the personal comments directed toward me were left to stand.  I don't do this to others, as it is bad form in a public or private forum.  A debate can take place without name calling and slurs towards anyone, in particular.

I also thought it was against the rules here???

Debate, yes, I LOVE a good debate.  Not so appreciative of personal comments about views of anyone.

Maybe we can do this on a "he said/she said" basis debate sometime on uh, you know, software or some less volatile subject, eh?

:) 

I wrote you a message about that for clarification.  Yes, it's in the rules that users are to respect other users, but I see no foul language.  I don't really approve of anyone calling anyone else crazy, but this is a political debate, I understand some things are going to get slightly out of hand.  

As I stated in the message I sent, all things considered, this could have become a much larger flame war than what happened here.