Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (@pegobry) recently authored an article that ran on Business Insider. The article was sensationally titled ‘The Startup Visa Act Must Be Stopped‘ and in it Pascal describes his reservations about the Startup Visa proposal. I don’t know Pascal, but I do hope that he, and others, will read and consider this response to his article.

One of the main concerns Pascal raises is that the Startup Visa would depend too much on investors. Well, let’s see. If you have a million dollars to spare, then you could apply for the EB-5 visa and come to the US on that basis. However, most startup entrepreneurs I’ve met, don’t have that kind of money laying around to invest personally. The Startup Visa proposes that instead of the funding coming from the entrepreneur himself/herself, that funding can come from US-based superangels and/or VCs. One of the big concerns of the US immigration system is that they don’t want foreigners to come to the US without having the means to support themselves (and thereby become a burden on the State). This is true of almost all visa categories — even to come as a tourist you need to either show that you have sufficient funds for the duration of your stay, or, that you have a US-based financial sponsor. The same applies for a student visa. For a work (H-1B) visa, the company needs to demonstrate that it has the financial means to pay the prevailing wage. So by changing who funds a company to superangels or VCs, rather than the foreign entrepreneur, we’re trying to actually make it possible for more entrepreneurs to come to the US. There has to be some source of funding/support — superangels and VCs are the logical sources for that. This is *not* some underhanded play at having more leverage over entrepreneurs.

Most entrepreneurs (myself included at one point) over-estimate the issues of “control” in a company. Investors do *not* want to run your company. They simply want *you* to run it well. If they wanted to run a company — they could go start their own (especially for those of us who have been entrepreneurs already). If you don’t want to raise money from investors, and choose to do it organically, or by using personal resources, that’s great and there is nothing in the Startup Visa stopping you from doing that. Having funding tied to the Startup Visa makes it possible for the fledgling startup to indeed be able to create jobs and hire people in the US.

Pascal argues that the Startup Visa increases, rather than decreases the risk for entrepreneurs. I don’t see how this is the case. I came to the US on a student visa, and decided to stay to start a company (for the full story, see my previous post on My Story and Support for the Founders Visa). I had nine months of practical training left to get the company going. If it succeeded, I still needed to cross the hurdle of getting a visa. In the case of the Startup Visa you get two years to start, with extensions thereafter. If you fail, there is nothing preventing you from getting a new Startup Visa — provided you can find sources for funding for your next idea. Or, if you want to get a job you can apply for a visa for that too. The Startup Visa doesn’t change the risks for an entrepreneur. I chose to start my company in the US because I felt that it was the right place to do it — it was my choice. Having made that choice, the Startup Visa makes it easier for an entrepreneur like me to come to the US, or to stay in the US, as the case may be.

Showing steady progress across one or more measures (making revenue, creating jobs, securing additional funding) are all parts of the Startup Visa proposal. That’s how it should be in any meritocracy. When I entered the PhD program at Stanford, we were told that one of the conditions for us to remain in the program is to demonstrate Reasonable Progress (see Section II, Guidelines for Reasonable Progress), otherwise you don’t get to stay.

Finally, Pascal argues that the Startup Visa will be bad for investors as entrepreneurs will self-select to start companies in their own countries, or, wait till they have a million dollars to put down for an EB-5. Well, this is how it is right now. There is no easy way for a foreign entrepreneur (who doesn’t have a million dollars) to come to the US under the current system. If anything, the Startup Visa makes this easier, not harder. So I fail to see how this would be bad for the US, or bad for US investors (and yes, we are focusing on the US here).

Among a bunch of other smaller points Pascal mentions that the Startup Visa doesn’t give you a greencard right away. Yes, that too is exactly how it should be. When my wife and I got married, she didn’t get a permanent greencard right away. She got a conditional greencard — and the condition needs to be removed after two years. These are safeguards that the system needs to prevent the system from being gamed (granted it’s not always foolproof). In the case of marriage, it is to ensure that it’s not a sham marriage. In the case of the Startup Visa it is to be able to verify that it is indeed a bonafide startup that contributes positively to the US economy.

He also points out that the Startup Visa doesn’t increase the total number of visas, but shares the quota from the EB-5 visa. That’s because the EB-5 visa is severely under-utilized (Annual quota: 10,000, 2008: 1,443. 2009: 4,218 – tripled after creation of ‘regional centers’). There aren’t a lot of startup entrepreneurs who can afford to invest a million dollars from their personal net worth (the investment cannot be from a third party and the EB-5 process requires proof of this in the form of documentation for lawful source of funds). By repurposing an unused portion of the EB-5 visa category, the Startup Visa will allow more entrepreneurs to come to the US, without having to increase the overall allocation for visas.

(The opinions in this post are solely of the author @manukumar and all the usual legal disclaimers apply)