
In Blow to Tech Industry, Trump Shelves Startup Immigrant Rule - aaronbrethorst
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/technology/in-blow-to-tech-industry-trump-shelves-start-up-immigrant-rule.html?_r=0
======
djb_hackernews
The rules of this startup visa never made any sense. They basically ensured
that very few potential immigrant founders would qualify and the ones that did
were in a place where they probably didn't see the value in that path as
opposed to other business related visas.

~~~
jasode
_> The rules of this startup visa never made any sense._

Can you elaborate specifically on the rules of the USA startup visa that
didn't make sense? For comparison and discussion, you can look at other
countries' startup visa programs [1] like Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, etc.

Basically, the idea is to craft the visa rules such that the barriers are high
enough that it allows legitimate foreign entrepreneurs with _real business
prospects_ to filter through. On the other hand, if you make the criteria "too
easy", it becomes a "back door visa" for non-productive foreigners to abuse.

It's a balance between those two outcomes. Did any other country tune their
visa policy correctly? If so, what did USA specifically get wrong and what did
the other countries get right?

[1] [http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-
entrepreneurs-h...](http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-
entrepreneurs-how-countries-are-seeking-out-immigrant-job-creators)

~~~
bargl
I wish I could remember where I saw the video (a guy with a bunch of gumballs
representing population), but I remember he spoke about how the visa process
is really beneficial for the USA but bad for other countries. The point being
that we drain their talent pool while increasing our own.

The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of
other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within
their own infrastructure. Instead the USA benefits in that we don't have to
have the smartest people just the most attractive place for them to come and
help our country. So while I disagree with his message behind this move, I
think he inadvertently helped the rest of the world...

~~~
bduerst
Pretty much. 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrant families.
Likewise, 7 of the top 10 brands in the world were founded by U.S. immigrants
or their children.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-pe...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-
of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-
children/#156be9a14a59)

~~~
geebee
How many of those immigrants were sponsored by a corporation or investor and
restricted in how and where they could work by the terms of their employment?

How many came here as free and full members of the workforce, allowed to
pursue their own career paths as they saw fit?

There's a huge difference between supporting immigration and employer
controlled visa programs.

~~~
bduerst
The newest fortune 500 companies (founded last 25 years) are _more_ likely to
have an immigrant founder. Corporate sponsorship (H1B, etc.) was part of the
Immigration Act of 1965, meaning that even in lieu of more restrictive
immigration, immigrants are still heavy hitters for generating jobs and
revenue.

------
geebee
I can't say I'm tremendously enthusiastic about this visa. My objection to it
is the same as my objection to almost all specialized, employer sponsored
visas - I don't think employers, universities, or investors should be
empowered to decide who is allowed to live in the US. If you grant them this
power, they _will_ abuse it.

Think about it this way - you're a startup founder with US citizenship. You go
to an investor who offers you 100K in seed funding in exchange for X% of your
business. You say no deal. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't
give you my money.

Now imagine you don't have citizenship. Same scenario. Ok, says the employer,
but that does mean I won't give you the right to live in the United States.

One point I've emphasized over and over here on HN is that you can be very
pro-immigration and still be very opposed to programs that put private
citizens (employers, investors) or corporations in a position of government
sanctioned power over would-be immigrants. I think employers and investors
should be allowed to decide who gets a job or money, but the power ends there.
They absolutely should not be empowered to run the US immigration system for
their personal benefit.

These visas are often described as "allows foreign engineers/entrepreneurs/etc
to live in the US." That's misleading. It should be described as "allows
corporations and investors to decide who is and isn't allowed to live in the
US."

So, the tech industry is in favor of a regulatory regime that allows tech
corporations to be gatekeepers for who is and isn't allowed to immigrate? What
a surprise.

Think of it this way - I can accept that google is allowed to no-hire someone
who contributed to open source but can't reverse a binary tree on the spot at
a whiteboard. Google's call.

But should google be making decisions about who is allowed to live in the US
based on these interviews? That changes the question dramatically for me.

------
brudgers
Based on the description of the rule in the article, the emphasis is on
fundraising rather than producing jobs or value. The thresholds of $250k and
$100k remind me of Dr. Evil's $1 million. It's just not enough of a bar to
separate friends and family funds from legitimate business rationales.

Edit: In response to comments, currently $100k and $250k are not uncommon
amounts for a person to incur attending university in the US. Solo operational
costs in The Bay can swallow much of either in a year without hiring anyone or
building anything...but in fairness either is a lot of money for most people
if its yours and not very much if it is someone else's.

~~~
nostromo
It would make much more sense to run it like an auction, given the aims of the
program.

So, for example, an entrepreneur that just raised $10m would be prioritized
for the visa over someone who raised $100k.

~~~
davidw
An auction presumes X number of spots. Who decides that X?

At least an amount of money is something people can kinda sorta reason about
in terms of a business.

~~~
nostromo
The program was set up with a limited number of spots to begin with.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_Visa#Use_of_existing_v...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_Visa#Use_of_existing_visa_numbers)

------
bitL
Alright, so I have companies in the US (Delaware/Nevada), never resided in the
US and if needed I could go with one of those E visas given I pay $100-500k
indirectly for the privilege. I am still able to visit US 2x year for 3 months
at a time. What's all the fuss about?

~~~
pm90
What is your country of origin? That determines how much shit you get at the
border and your likelihood of getting visas.

~~~
bitL
EU, no issues with ESTA. OK, if I were from Russia or some 3rd world country
then I might be in troubles, you're right.

------
kasey_junk
The bigger issue here is that it shows that the tech leaders that have been
"working within the system" do not have very much sway over the Trump
administration, as this was the only concession they were able to get from
him. Thats the bigger blow than this specific rule.

~~~
idlewords
Yes, this is strong evidence that having the President's ear counts for
nothing. They are attending these meetings at a high cost to their reputation
and getting nothing in return.

~~~
ethanhunt_
These meetings should not have any cost to their reputation and for the most
part they don't. No matter what you think of the President, it is
unquestionably good for America for our savvy CEOs to be advising him.

People trying to punish the CEOs who advise him are harmful to our country,
and worse than the politicians that make decisions to further their own
careers instead of do what's best for their country/state/county.

~~~
s73ver
I disagree. Doing that legitimizes this president and their actions, which is
something that plain should not be happening.

Not to mention that it was clear from the start that Trump was never going to
listen to them anyway. Just about everyone on that board said no to the Muslim
ban. He did it anyway.

~~~
mason240
We live in a democracy, which has legitimized him by electing him President.

~~~
mullen
Last time I checked, he did not win the election, just the Electorial College,
which is skewed toward low population states.

~~~
refurb
Winning the Electoral College _is_ winning the election.

Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't change that fact.

------
threepipeproblm
I believe this hurts some clients of mine, who were looking at it as a
possible answer. They have been spending significant $$$ in the US economy,
developing a product that it's unlikely any domestic firm could, and
struggling to find a way to stay here so that they have access to American
talent. They are currently here on a importer's license or something, which
makes it illegal for them to visit their home country.

While I don't want to be taken for one who is just losing their mind over
Trump (since they have _all_ typically seemed pretty lame to me), xenophobia
is actively harmful to US economic interests.

~~~
atomicUpdate
> developing a product that it's unlikely any domestic firm could, and
> struggling to find a way to stay here so that they have access to American
> talent.

How do those two statements not contradict each other? It sounds like
"developing a product that it's unlikely any domestic firm could" should
really be "developing a product that domestic firms are not interested in" if
the talent required to build it is also American.

~~~
threepipeproblm
Good question, simple answer: They have domain knowledge that is basically
impossible (or very unlikely) for foreigners to their home country to have.
But they have a preference for American talent to build their product, partly
because they feel the supply of good programmers is better here (a sentiment I
am probably oversimplifying, i.e. maybe they have a complex notion of value.
The point is they want to start up here.)

This is to the best of my understanding. They have made some explanatory
statements to me, but usually we are working. And they are very polite, not
feeling it is really on them to criticize. I know they have used a large
number of freelancers in my area, for various tasks.

While this story may not be stereotypical, everyone has their own story and
our current immigration policy seems to limit entrepreneurs in many unexpected
ways.

------
goodroot
This is wonderful for Canada. Vancouver tech has already seen a nice bump from
the American political hostility towards immigrants.

~~~
chrshawkes
BS, Canada has continued to struggle with a brain drain problem where tech
workers can easily cross the border and earn 40 to 50k more per year. The
economy has been doing well under Trump and I suspect with decisions such as
this, we'll continue to see a rise in American prosperity.
[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-tech-braindrain-
idU...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-tech-braindrain-
idUSKBN1592O2)

------
malchow
Is it a "blow" if the policy was never actually in effect?

~~~
markbnj
Why is it not? For example, people might have been making plans based on the
expectation that it would be in effect.

~~~
pbreit
Because the program has never existed in the entire US history. For all we
know it could have made things worse.

~~~
burkaman
If one company tries to acquire another but the purchase is blocked by the
government, would you consider that a blow to either company?

~~~
thehardsphere
Yes.

~~~
burkaman
Even though we can't know what the result would have been? Many mergers and
acquisitions turn out to be huge mistakes.

~~~
thehardsphere
The government stopping an entirely consensual act between two people or
organizations is a blow to those people, because they aren't being allowed to
do whatever it is that they otherwise wanted. Whether it would have been a
mistake or not is their problem and part of doing business.

You wouldn't use this same logic for actual people, would you? Two people may
have sexual intercourse; many acts of intercourse lead to unwanted pregnancy
and AIDS, so we should deem these people "unharmed" if the government denies
them the opportunity to have sex?

~~~
burkaman
No, sorry, it was sort of a rhetorical question. You said a little earlier
that you don't consider cancelling this rule to be a blow since it might have
been harmful, and I thought this was an analogous situation. The government is
stopping consensual acts between investors and entrepreneurs.

~~~
thehardsphere
Right. I think it is a "blow" in the sense that the companies expended time
and effort preparing for this rule change. I don't know whether it is a "blow"
in any way beyond that.

------
luckydata
I'm no fan of Donald Trump but this "buy your own visa" scheme always left me
very perplexed. I was trying to figure out who would benefit from it, and
aside a few wealthy, mostly Asian citizens, I couldn't see the reason for it.

I'm glad it's dead.

p.s.: Before you call me xenophobe keep in mind I'm a foreign born US citizen,
I immigrated through the normal procedures.

~~~
pointoutxeno
You are an Italian [1], which thanks to its membership to EU and how US green
cards are allocated significantly benefits from the current status quo unlike
say Chinese/Indians/Mexicans. So please don't pretend as if you went through
any hardship or discount your race privilege. Oh and xenophobia against Asians
who are rich is also xenophobia.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12491395](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12491395)

~~~
jshevek
The parents statement is literally correct. You seem, to me, to be assuming
motive and wrongly accusing the parent.

------
xutopia
This will help Canadian startups a lot.

~~~
popopobobobo
But I don't think anyone is willing to go to Canada considering the huge
salary gap. I got Canadian developer friends who is making half of what I am
making in US by sheer number besides the currency exchange rate.

~~~
timtosi
I don't know where you live in the USA so I cannot really judge but I think
you should also take in consideration the cost of life in USA and Canada. It's
not only about how much you make but about how much you spend.

~~~
j2bax
Is the cost of living around most software companies in Canada so much less
than the US?

~~~
timtosi
About what I heard on the housing price topic from both sides, yes. EDIT:
California VS Montreal

~~~
squeaky-clean
On the flipside, Vancouver is apparently more expensive than anywhere in the
US for housing and median salary is much lower than somewhere like New York
City.

~~~
EduardoBautista
Moving just a few hours south to Seattle will give you a huge increase in
salary and lower cost of living.

------
geff82
Berlin will have a place for you ;) ! Honestly, just another bad news from a
country that now began to close its doors to be happy alone. Instead of
embracing change and new people, it now makes it extremely difficult for
anyone to legally come in. The American Culture became not so wide spreaded
because of its interesting closedness, but because it gave many, many people a
chance and because it incorporated cultures into this enormous melting pot. I
think conservative Americans have not yet realized to what extent the current
Administration destroys the glorious brand the country once was. Last time I
checked the USA on google maps, there were large areas of empty land that
could be the home of a hundred million more without disturbing anyone. At
least the acre of Texas prarie that we own is a very lonely space to camp
on...

~~~
chrshawkes
Our schools and infrastructure are crumbling. Taking in more poor immigrants
does nothing to address this problem, only makes it worse. Some of the golden
European countries are very closed off from the outside world and their
solutions are not an apples to apples comparison with that of the USA, which
is already the third most populated country in the world.

~~~
geff82
Honestly, don't call me or any of the people I know that would come "poor" one
more time. Including me, we have good savings, earn 6 figures, have good
education (not necessarily University, which does not matter that much here in
Germany). We are all quite entrepreneurial spirited, yet do not fall in the
category "ultrarich". We probably would earn and contribute quite well to the
US society. Yet we do not fit in any visa category. So also because of the
unwelcoming visa policy and complicated process, my wife and I will now stay
here in Germany, currently are in the process of buying a house and just
signed the contract for our first employee (onshore, besides 2 offshore). We
used to be big USA fanboys, but it is just very difficult to get there. Also
my wife is Iranian, which does not ease things.

~~~
geff82
By the way I know there are those treaty-trader visas that would have allowed
us to open/buy a business in the US for a reasonable amount of money. But as
it offers no way to a greencard, it does not make sense for us. Imagine
operating a well-earning business with a couple of employees for about 20
years and then being sent back when one closes/sells it... why would I do
that? At least after a defined period of time (3-5 years) a visa like this
should lead to permanent residency.

------
dmode
A lot of people are complaining about the original rule itself, but as someone
who deals with US immigration laws everyday, I can tell you why it is.
Immigration law is defined by Congress and there are very clear legislation on
how immigrants can be granted visas and citizens. Given that, the executive
branch has very little room to maneuver to visa rules. Thus the startup visa
rules were written in a way to stay within the context of the original
Congressional intent of creating EB visa. Otherwise, it will get challenged in
court (which every new visa ruled does, including the H4 visa EAD). I was
hoping that with Congressional majorities, Trump can actually create a legal
start-up visa akin to what we have in other countries. But I guess that won't
happen anymore

------
chrshawkes
I don't see how allowing somebody overseas to come to the USA to create a
company for 2 to 5 years while attracting hundreds of thousands in American
dollars, to only be sent back to their country after the Visa expires (5
years) is a good idea?

How does it benefit the USA to build foreign companies with United States
dollars so they can empower their own country and their own people, while
middle and lower class Americans continue to grasp at the scraps?

I think I side with Trump on this one.

~~~
jpetso
If they're coming to the US and take American VC money, most of them will be
building an American company, not a foreign one. Led by a foreigner, yes. But
hiring a good bunch of local people if the company ends up successful. The
while company won't be just relocating at the end of the visa term, because
it's built with people who want to continue working in America.

Or at least that's the idea of a visa like this. I can't say I understand the
system enough to tell if it would, in fact, work as planned.

------
kareemsabri
So how do YC companies with foreign founders live in the US? I know a few
Canadian ones that do.

------
tbking
I see it more as a blow to tech industry in U.S. Especially when most other
countries like Canada are opening up to skilled workers

------
idlewords
The startup visa is a bad idea (it makes immigration status conditional on
funding, which adds perverse incentives to an already dysfunctional funding
culture), but the fact that the tech industry can't even get small concessions
like this from Trump vitiates the argument that it's worth attending very
public meetings with him.

------
ghostbrainalpha
So the rule was delayed by "Homeland Security"...

Does this mean that they are protecting us from terrorists? Because I would
have thought the protecting American jobs argument was stronger.

------
ajsharp
Mediocre US-born programmers, rejoice!

------
bharadwajk
Fk it, lets move to china

~~~
jrs95
If that were a migration that really happened it would be extremely ironic.
Progressives, infuriated with the racism and sexism in Trump's America, move
to China. Only to discover that China is even more racist and sexist!

------
hildaman
The US skills based immigration system is based on bringing in indentured
labor to enrich corporations.

L-1 visa holders _cannot_ change jobs. H-1B visa holders have to go through an
expensive and cumbersome process to change jobs which effectively restricts
their job mobility.

Obviously, outside super-hot job markets like silicon valley, US workers have
a hard time competing with indentured labor.

This visa would have created brand new class of "entrepreneur" indentured to
deep-pocketed VC firms. They would actually be worse off than H-1B and L-1
workers because - not only would they be beholden to the VC firms for funding
(thereby their jobs) in the United States - but they would have to part with
their ideas.

No nativist here - just saying how things are working on the ground once you
shave off the corporate propaganda.

~~~
dang
You picked just about the most inflammatory word you could ("indenture") and
repeated it several times. That is exactly the wrong way to comment on a
divisive topic here. It leads to shallow discussion and flamewars. So please
don't do that. We're hoping for thoughtful, substantive discussion, not
rhetorical escalation.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

~~~
beefman
This is indeed a politicized topic, and moderation is hard, but FWIW I see no
issue with the parent comment. The point has been discussed here before using
similar terms.[1][2]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13360522#13360887](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13360522#13360887)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7111531#7113442](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7111531#7113442)

~~~
dang
It isn't just a question of the word, but of using it as a rhetorical weapon
in an ideological argument. That leads to flamewars so when we see people
doing it we ask them not to.

It's also not ok to use HN primarily for political or ideological battle,
since that isn't the purpose of the site. Obviously some topics are more
political and commenting in such threads is fine, but it's not to use an
account primarily for it.

------
elmar
how it's possible that Trump an entrepreneur inself doesn't see the stupidity
of killing this "Startup Visa" I am speechless.

~~~
s_kilk
Trump inherited his fortune, not exactly a bootstrapped entrepreneur.

~~~
sogen
Inherited fortune made by an immigrant.

~~~
drpgq
Technically wasn't his father born in the US?

~~~
bcg1
His father inherited his money from his own father, who moved to the Klondike
in order to dodge the German draft and became wealthy by running brothels
catering to gold prospectors.

------
bharadwajk
We need a parallel world without borders. A way businesses can operate without
govts meddling. Ethereum? Bitcoin? VR?

~~~
hellobharadwaj
lets do it

------
pbreit
Not sure how it's that much of a "blow" since the program hasn't even started
yet.

