It's not about successful companies. You can have one of those without investing $500,000 into it. Make no mistake, this visa is about helping rich people make more money by enabling them to collaborate with other rich people around the world.
If that is not true, then entrepreneurs should be allowed into the country whether or not they've invested $500k into a business. What if you've invested 3 years into a business or 10 years? Why not let those people in too? They create jobs.
This bill is absurd. It's classist. It's contrary to the American dream where hard work and accomplishment is the ticket to wealth, not a check for $500,000.
Why don't we just remove the veil and call it what it is, "The Rich Man's Visa".
The EB-5 visa (the "investor's visa") has been in place since 1990. The article mentions that half of the available visas under EB-5 go unused, which is where this bill is suggesting additional visas be allocated.
The bill that's just been introduced doesn't require the entrepreneur to do anything except start a business and be funded. After 2 years they either have to garner more funding or have over $1,000,000 in revenues.
I'm more than a little confused as to how you see this as being "the rich man's visa", especially in light of the fact that the existing EB-5 program fits that nickname much more accurately.
Yes, this is just the "slightly poorer than the EB5 man's visa", with the added stipulation that they have to create jobs, which seems like a great side-effect.
Fundamentally US immigration needs reform to a points-based system. But this is a relatively quick and simple tweak that would create a lot of jobs.
The objection seems to be that it's imperfect, which is almost certainly true. It would be good to push them to improve it, but when all is said and done, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I don't get it. The bill does not require the entrepreneur to have $500,000. It requires that the company raise a million dollars (and/or) earn a million dollars (and/or) create 5 jobs in 3 years AFTER the visa is issued.
Now I am not a lawyer, so I would really like to know if it is "and" or "or", but I don't see where it requires the entrepreneur to be rich.
I might not have been clear on the numbers, but I believe any such restrictions on entry are not good. I don't believe any of them should be requirements.
If someone wants to come to the U.S. and try to create a business and has it all lined out -- let them come! Don't make them get approval from someone with lots of money.
If someone wants to come to the U.S. and try to create a business and has it all lined out -- let them come!
Has, what all lined out? There in lies the rub. If you let anyone who declares he is an entrepreneur in, the law will be a joke. Naturally, you have to have some firm qualifiers. As long as it is 5 jobs OR a million dollars in revenue OR investment and you have 2 (or 3) years to do it, I don't understand why that is unfair. 2 years is a lot of time to create 5 jobs. It's not an easy goal, but it's doable.
I say this as someone who intends to go the EB6 route if this passes.
Perhaps I should ask you then, why would you take this visa deal instead of simply having the investors give you the money for you to create your business in your home country?
IMO, What country you should be in depends on who your customers are. Based on my experience, as a startup you should be where your customers are. If I was creating a business targeted at people in my home country, I would stay there and raise money there.
In this case, I am creating a business whose customers are in the U.S. And so, so am I. Just on a much slower route to permanent residency.
Were I not already in the U.S., other reasons for me to go the EB6 route rather than do business there could be
(1)If it is much much much harder to get VC in my home country
(2) If the kind of business I want to start can only be done in the U.S.
If that is not true, then entrepreneurs should be allowed into the country whether or not they've invested $500k into a business. What if you've invested 3 years into a business or 10 years? Why not let those people in too? They create jobs.
This bill is absurd. It's classist. It's contrary to the American dream where hard work and accomplishment is the ticket to wealth, not a check for $500,000.
Why don't we just remove the veil and call it what it is, "The Rich Man's Visa".