
Trump administration has plan to scrap ‘startup visa’ rule - sloreti
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Trump-administration-has-plan-to-scrap-startup-11236692.php
======
marcell
From the article:

"To qualify for the rule, entrepreneurs would have to meet high standards. A
foreigner must demonstrate that he or she will contribute to economic growth
or job creation and show that a reputable investor has put at least $250,000
into the company. Under this rule, they can stay in the U.S. for 30 months,
with the possibility of a 30-month extension. They cannot apply for a green
card during this period."

This sounds like a pretty lame visa. How are you supposed to build a startup
if you only have 30 months to do so? Why would investors risk $250k if the
founder may be deported in 30 months? What happens after the extension period?

I'm 100% in favor of increasing all immigration to the USA, but this visa
doesn't sound like a good option at all. Is the USA really so appealing that
talented entrepreneurs will jump through this many hoops to start their
company here?

~~~
Warvick
I only wondered why US will not open up to the countries, that are known for
being safe, with well educated and easy to integrate citizens. US is opening
its borders to rich countries instead of opening to safe bets to grab some
tech talent.

There are numerous countries that fit this profile. The majority of
Central/Eastern Europe, few Asian and South American countries, even with
Africa having some. Instead, they expect for people from developed countries
go through the nightmare of getting a visa, being screened and then live in
places like Cali where cost of living is ridiculous. US could easily give out
1 Mil easy-to-get visas with easy-to-get transition program to a green card
that would bump their economy, instead, they are creating walls everywhere.

~~~
alva
It is quite a puzzle. I have spent some time thinking about it however the
only solution I reach seems conspiratorial.

To me, it seems obvious that every financially successful (through merit or
otherwise) and well educated person you can draw into your country, the
better. If such a person makes your country home, the likely-hood of them
contributing to the economy is high.

Despite this, emigrating to the US from Western Europe is extremely arduous.
Either you are transferred via a multinational facing high competition for the
place or you enter the lottery alongside others who won't necessarily
contribute as much as you are able to.

The incentive for a nation such as the US seems perfectly apparent from the
outside. Grab the best and brightest from countries with excellent education
and similar cultural backgrounds in exchange for citizenship. When there is so
much demand, why not? Seems to only be a win.

I cannot help but think that western nations have entered some sort of pact
(as many SV companies did) in regards to non poaching. Each country wants to
keep their best, so some agreement (formal or otherwise) is reached to prevent
mass exodus to one.

~~~
Banthum
It is a mystery. I don't think it's some grand thought-out non-poaching
agreement, though. I think you have to break it down to domestic politics.

The left wants to maximize multiculturalism. This has become a sort of
fundamental value to that tribe (rather than a means to an end), and their
fundamental anti-value is racism/xenophobia/intolerance of anyone not white-
Christian. So that tribe will resist any hint of an attempt to selectively
immigrating people from culturally or racially similar countries, because such
immigration actually threatens to reduce multiculturalism, which to them is a
fundamentally evil thing. So they'd call it racist.

In addition, even just choosing people for wealth or intelligence or English
skills, you'd end up with a big cultural/racial skew towards white people
(compared to the world population), so the left would call it racist for the
same reasons.

Those on the right might be happy with such immigration, but it's too
difficult of an argument to make and it's too easy for the left to call them
racists if they suggest anything like it. So as a proxy, they tend to argue
for reducing all immigration.

I must be missing a lot of the details but I think it's some sort of political
compromise/deadlock like this.

------
bwang29
I was invited last year in a round table discussion on this new rule. The
original responses for the rule were mixed as there are plenty of nuances.
Specifically, the main concern is the rule would lead to investors demanding
founders to first acquire this type of status before they were able to get
funded, causing a Chicken and Egg problem.

The original proposal of the rule required 375k of funding from US only
accredited investors, and there are also requirements for the startup founders
to maintain a certain threshold of ownership while being able to hire a lot of
American employees in short period of time. I don't remember the specific
number requirement/head counts but it was definitely enough to pressurize the
company to expand in size quickly, while many tech startups do not necessarily
need to hire dozens of employees in a 1-3 year period, not to mention they all
had to be US citizens. 1-3 years would also be a stretch for most startup to
figure out a concrete plan of growth in order to quality for an extension. And
what if the founders want to bootstrap themselves?

Ultimately this rule still doesn't show any concrete pathway of residency or
visa guarantees after 6 years. And because it is not a visa, it will take time
to educate immigration officers and TSAs as well as creating a reasonable
structure to allow founders to travel outside US legally as well. Historically
there is a huge delay of understanding OPT, STEM and O1 visas in plenty of US
embassies.

To make things even more complicated, it is not USCIS's interest to be a judge
to tell which company would qualify for this rule, and they would need to form
a group of trusted committees to check case by case if a company and their
founders/co-founders qualify for this rule. I also heard that founder's
spouses would be able to travel to US too.

------
pavlov
I asked this very question on HN in November 2016: will the "startup visa"
survive? Commenters thought that Trump wouldn't interfere with it:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12931943](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12931943)

This is a solid reminder that the Trump administration is showing itself to be
mostly concerned with undoing anything that Obama did, rather than working for
anyone's benefit. You can't apply logic to predict the actions of these
people.

~~~
giarc
I'm not an American but as an outsider it's so odd to see the anti-Obama
stance this government is taking. Look at the US economy coming out of 2008.
From my perspective it's done quite well. Unemployment has gone from 10% to
4%, GDP has climbed. S&P and US stocks in general have done exceptionally
well. It seems like whatever Obama did was working. Do the Republicans think
they can do better? Why not just ride their coat tails to glory?

~~~
averagewall
You have the assumption that economic growth is what they want. Trump has a
mandate to punish the rich/middle class people so the poor people can feel
relatively better about themselves. Startup visas can do nothing to help the
poor rural unemployed. They'll probably be happier with a weaker dollar and
thus more primary/secondary industry job opportunities. They certainly don't
care about unicorns.

This is a big population of severely disadvantaged people who gain nothing
from GDP growth. They do matter.

~~~
musha68k
Most Trump voters were not working class though:

[https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/16/93450/](https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/16/93450/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2017/06/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-
working-class/?utm_term=.228b90d9ef31)

------
paulsutter
Vancouver, anyone?

I live in Seattle and I'm about ready to drive two hours north for my next
startup. To hire the Russian programmers I'm already working with, or the
folks on Kaggle I'd love to hire. The US has a completely broken scheme for
visas.

~~~
drspacemonkey
That's just trading one problem for another. Vancouver has a very serious
affordability problem. Not only are you going to be paying a lot more for
office and living space, you're going to have far fewer opportunities for
funding.

~~~
startupdiscuss
I wonder if there is an arbitrage opportunity: invest in real estate and
office space north of Seattle and south of Vancouver, just over the border.

Those who can go back and forth and take meetings on both sides. People are
within commuting distance of these large metro areas.

~~~
drspacemonkey
Real estate on the Washington side of the border is insanely cheaper. As soon
as you cross the border, prices skyrocket and just keep going up until you hit
downtown Vancouver.

Seriously, our affordability problem is pretty much at crisis levels. People
who argue that we should increase density aren't wrong, but we're already
building towers as fast as we can. And the majority of those suffer from
substandard, shoddy construction. We call it 'leaky condo syndrome'. And even
those are selling for $750k+ for under 500sqft.

~~~
paulsutter
Vancouver is a wonderful city so I can really understand why you want to keep
everyone from finding out :)

But go see San Francisco if you want to understand an affordability crisis.
Vancouver is reasonable in comparison.

~~~
drspacemonkey
Yes, the cost of living in San Francisco is about twice that of Vancouver. But
salaries in Vancouver less than half that of San Francisco, so affordability
is worse overall.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE a stronger tech sector here (especially as a
developer). We desperately need an industry other than real estate and film.
But I just don't see how that can happen without a fundamental shift that just
isn't happening anytime soon.

------
Indolat
Unfortunately, the immigration policies of most countries in the world are one
huge stupid joke. Why so much obsession about the country where people were
born into? It wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter.

The only questions you should be asking are "are they decent people? Are they
willing to integrate? Will they contribute to our economy? Will they make us
problems?" And none of these questions you can answer by reading the name of
the country on their passport.

~~~
omginternets
>Why so much obsession about the country where people were born into? It
wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter.

Because nationality _does_ matter. The oft-repeated meme that we're all the
same doesn't hold to even superficial scrutiny.

Nationality is not arbitrary in the sense that it's a crystallization of
centuries of cultural values. People's place of birth predicts their attitudes
about a vast number of political and social subjects. This includes, for
instance, how they feel about such subjects as:

\- democracy

\- freedom of religion

\- minority & women's rights

\- the belief (or not) that certain races are superior to others

\- etc...

(Apologies for the multiple edits. It took me a few tries to express myself
clearly.)

~~~
calvinbhai
Nationality and Country of birth, are two different things.

If Elon Musk was born in India or China, and when he was 1 yr old he moved
back to South Africa, and rest of his life remained unchanged from what has
been, then he'd not be granted a permanent residency as easily and may have
just become a US Citizen in the last two years. Can you imagine what loss it
would be to the US if Musk had to wait so long to become a US Citizen?

Likewise, if a China-born French citizen were to apply for employment based
permanent residency in the US, the green card backlogs would be too onerous
for one to succeed as an entrepreneur.

Also, place of birth limits currently is used purely for limiting the number
of immigrants born in a country gaining Permanent Residency in the US. So, a
person born in a country like India (world largest democracy, with freedom of
religion, minority and women's rights and equality in races etc) has to be in
a much longer queue to get Permanent Residency than a person who is born in
say Sudan or Iran or Pakistan or any of the other Islamic nations where
there's no legit democracy or freedom of religion or minority rights.

Hope this helps in understanding the earlier comment in context.

~~~
omginternets
>Nationality and Country of birth, are two different things.

For the purposes of this discussion, it's largely a distinction without a
difference.

I don't oppose immigration in principle, but the rather extreme view that
_any_ amount of immigration, from _any_ place, to _any_ place is necessarily a
Good Thing is founded on some very strange assumptions.

------
notadoc
Are they going to scrap the EB-5 visa too? Doesn't it basically sell
citizenship for real estate?

~~~
virtuabhi
"Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States." \- Kushner Companies.

[In a Beijing ballroom, Kushner family pushes $500,000 ‘investor visa’ to
wealthy Chinese] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-
ballroom-k...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-
kushner-family-flogs-500000-investor-visa-to-wealthy-
chinese/2017/05/06/cf711e53-eb49-4f9a-8dea-3cd836fcf287_story.html)

~~~
azurezyq
Actually people with $500k are hardly considered wealthy in Beijing. A typical
100 m^2 flat within 4th ring road worth well over $1M. EB5 seems so easy
here...

------
nopinsight
This is a wild speculation, but is it possible that the Trump administration
believes startups to be bad for the Rust Belt working class and other similar
demographic they say they represent? For example, greater efficiency and
automation could reduce employment of semi skilled people.

In the long run, this line of policies would of course lead to technological
slow down and give a big opening for other countries to take the lead in a
crucial determiner of economic successes.

Other possible theses may be that they favor the 'native whites' to have
control as Steve Bannon used to mention or try to undo the legacies of Obama.

------
kefka
Then lets be blatant and straightforward then.

"If you're rich and willing to spend, we want you. If you're average or poor,
fuck you."

~~~
ryanmarsh
Yes we want capital and brains to flow in but your comment isn't fair. The US
has a history of settling refugees here. We also have a purposefully porous
southern border and have normalized illegal immigrants.

~~~
ktta
The current government seems to vehemently oppose the idea of normalizing
illegal immigrants.

~~~
ryanmarsh
It seems that way. However if we really wanted to deny border crossing we
would. It just isn't really a priority. The issue gets a lot of air time but
do you think if it really was a national priority it would be so easy to
cross?

When I was a kid we used to cross the river into Mexico to go eat (on hunting
trips near the border). We'd pay a guy to row us across and then back. It was
a well known thing. People from both sides used it to go back and forth all
the time.

Guess what, now that guy in a row boat is an official US border patrol
checkpoint. LOL

The border is a big joke.

~~~
ktta
>if we really wanted to deny border crossing we would. It just isn't really a
priority.

I doubt it. If you really wanted to deny border crossing, you'd have to
allocate so much money to ICE that it would upend the federdal spending
budget. It isn't feasible easily. That would make the current administration
look stupider that it already is.

~~~
HalteMich
Hyperbole

------
johnnydoebk
Sorry for a stupid question but I have to ask. Why everyone is so desperate to
start a company and locate it physically in the US? Is it just because of VC
money? Wouldn't any safe place with good laws and easy immigration policy do?
I don't take seriously Blockchain projects (and consider most of them blatant
scam) and they are relatively small now. But longterm can this model solve the
part about VC money?

~~~
michaelscott
I'd wager it's the pre-existing culture of Silicon Valley that attracts
startups. Kind of like a tech Mecca, it's got a magnetic pull based on "if you
want to succeed you need to be based here". With VCs etc operating out of
there it does actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As to the blockchain and ICO model, the problem is the current lack of
regulation, leaving the burden of research to the buyer. I expect this will
change relatively soon (places like New York, India and Singapore are already
trying to introduce legislation regarding this) and then we might see more of
an uptick, but you still need to get people out of the almost 40 year old
mindset now that "Silicon Valley is where startups have to be to make it big".

Not an easy task I'd say.

------
nopinsight
A practical question:

How easy or challenging is it to stay in Toronto or Vancouver and run a US-
registered startup there, if you need to collaborate with others in either SF
Bay area or Boston/NYC? (In-person meetings might not need to be frequent;
geting together once a month could be sufficient.)

I am an entrepreneur from Asia working to build a fundamental technology and
was planning to set up a company and live in the Bay area. After studying
diligently about various options, Canada could in fact be a better place to
settle in with a proper startup visa and much fewer hoops to jump through,
however the attraction of US tech ecosystem is powerful.

(Note: I earned a Masters degree with a thesis on AI/ML from a major US
research university and have traveled to, attended conferences, and lived in
the Bay area for several months per year over the last three years.)

The major reasons for SF Bay area dominance include:

1) access to top people, many if not most were/are foreign students, who
attend UC Berkeley and Stanford,

2) ecosystems of global tech talents recruited by major tech powerhouses like
Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.,

3) deep expertise and risk-taking attitude of Bay area VCs and angel
investors, and

4) ease of access to vast US consumer and enterprise markets.

For 3) would major VCs or angel investors invest in a startup with offices
about 1.5 to 2.5 hours away by plane? (The founders would need to travel to
see them sometimes; but do they require in-person supervision/updates more
than say once a month?)

For 4) I assume if the company is US-registered, it shouldn't have a problem
in principle, is that true?

------
zabana
I'm surprised no other country has decided to go ahead and create an equally
as open and safe environment for entrepreneurs to start companies. My
understanding (which, I'll admit, is only based on my own observations) is
that the vast majority of people outside the western sphere still regard the
US through what's projected in hollywood movies and aren't really in touch
with the reality of what life is in modern america (I'm a EU citizen myself
but have quite a few US based/American friends).

Essentially, the way I see it is : The US still has an edge in technology and
are able to attract top talent from overseas because they still benefit from
cultural hegemony and their image worldwide. What happens when the dream
evaporates is still a mystery to me. For example, how will the situation
evolve once chinese / russian / indian universities catch up with institutions
like stanford / MIT etc and enough investors from these countries decide to
pour money into local startups ?

~~~
zeusdx
Incorrect. UK has Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa where you can remain and run a
company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5
years or apply for settlement.

~~~
mschuster91
Yeah but the UK is not exactly an investment/entrepneur-friendly economy any
more. Brexit, at the rate it's going, will be either a hard Brexit or a
chaotic one, and without a soft Brexit (i.e. access to the European market)
all a potential investor has is the British market.

Also, UK does not have a constitution and civil rights (e.g. right to privacy,
to unrestricted, unfiltered Internet access) are being torn down further each
day... so if I were an investor, no way I'd set foot in this country, much
less invest in it.

~~~
zeusdx
Even before, there was no digital single market for services. The previous
single market was only for manufactured goods. So that didn't affect startups
in UK to be successful. We can expect the same after Brexit. Right to Privacy
is being eroded also in US with the new FTC rulings. So that is not a valid
disadvantage. Considering the recent events, Brexit if it ever happens, will
be a Soft Brexit as the UK Govt doesn't anymore have the required mandate or
support for a Hard Brexit that wrecks the economy.

------
justinzollars
We should put boats off the coast of San Francisco like we talked about a few
years ago.

~~~
vinhboy
Mass + New York + Canada + Seattle + Oregon + Cali will form the nation of
America 2.0. Open borders to all US citizens.

The rest of the US can mine coal, frack, or whatever they want to do. They
think that's where the jobs are.

Doesn't matter to us. We'll just speed up the electric, self-driving, car
revolution with China and continue working on climate change rules and a
global economy with Europe.

~~~
sergiotapia
Who do you think actually puts the food you eat on the table? Will you eat
your self-driving cars?

~~~
ebola1717
California actually:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html)

------
leggomylibro
'Startup visa' is one term for it, 'buy-a-visa' is another.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea; someone with vision and money
may be able to contribute a lot to the economy. But handing them a visa for
cash and a couple of years of supplying jobs feels very transactional. It
says, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money," not, "you can
come here as long as you contribute lots to the economy."

~~~
yladiz
There's a similar visa in South Korea, the D-8 visa, which requires you to
invest 50M Won (roughly 50,000 USD), either in some business or to open
another business, and some people have gotten frustrated that some have just
invested for the visa and never done anything further as the government
doesn't track beyond the initial investment. In this, and in the US case, the
government should track to make sure it's not being abused by people who just
have a lot of money and want to live in the country.

~~~
dakics
"people who just have a lot of money and want to live in the country"

What exactly is big problem with this?

Not speaking about becoming tax-resident of Monaco or similar, but your
example or an EU country where you can open LLC and set up your own business
and sort out residency paperwork in couple of years, for about that sum
(5-figure USD/EUR) at the end benefits to the country budget and society.

Speaking from personal experience, and let me tell you we make sure we perform
100% of what government expects from us and pay everything that's due.

Also, in case of IT and startups, I feel it creates "cleaner" work environment
and more positive and prospective work force than some other businesses (real-
estate, natural resources, etc.)

------
zeusdx
If US doesn't want startup entrepreneurs there are plenty of other countries
that have specialized visas to promote entrepreneurs and talent.

For example, UK has "Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa" where you can remain and run
a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another
5 years or apply for settlement.

There is also UK "Tier 1 - Exceptional Talent" visa where you can apply to
remain and work in UK without requiring any sponsorship from companies unlike
H1B visa in US which requires company sponsorship.

~~~
kbart
UK is, arguably, even more immigrant unfriendly. One of the main reasons for
Brexit was to limit immigration and immigrants' rights. And nobody knows where
UK gonna be in few years time, after Brexit procedures are completed..

~~~
zeusdx
Untrue. People living in rural areas (outside major UK cities such as London)
are against low-skilled immigrants coming from majorly east european countries
(Poland and Romania). Do not confuse it with high-skilled immigration which
the Tier 1 visas mentioned above are concerned. Immigrants are welcomed in
major UK cities such as London where a vast majority voted to "Remain" in
Brexit referendum.

------
maze-le
I think this might actually be a chance for the european tech industry. More
people will stay here (in europe) + come here to pursue a career in the tech
industry. What is needed additionally is a network of investors and vc-people
to realize great ideas.

------
mdekkers
Awesome! They are welcome in the EU, and where the talent is, the investors
will follow.

------
Alfredo123
Good idea. A lot of corrupt Indian politicians have been sending their progeny
to USA with this visa. It has nothing to do with startups but it is putting up
visa for sale.

There is nothing wrong in putting visa for sale, but please do not insult many
of us who are giving prime of our careers to startups while jumping through
complex maze of US visa system.

------
mrwnmonm
Shit, I am locking myself in my room to study to get a job in silicon valley,
what now?

------
jackaroe78
Why not Boise? We have population of refugees here looking for an opportunity.

------
zebraflask
Huh, that might be one of the few things I agree with Trump about.

------
sausman
Who is supposed to benefit from this? I'm confused.

------
nopinsight
A major reason for US prosperity and world-class science and technologies is
the immigration of best minds from all over the world.

Within 12-20 years, China's real GDP will overtake the US, assuming that
China's GDP grows at an annual rate 2.5+% faster than the US for the period.
This is quite plausible given that the current per capita income of China is
only 1/7 of the US and its major focus on R&D. Even now, many of the best
Chinese graduates from US universities are returning to China to pursue better
opportunities there.

China is spending $409 billion (PPP) on R&D, the second highest in the world
after the US and ahead of the EU. This amounts to 2.1% of GDP and very high
for their stage of economic development [1]. Their goal, from a variety of
sources, is to overtake the US as world's no. 1 and reclaim their historical
place.

If you look at PISA, China and the rest of East Asia, together with Singapore,
consistently perform at or near the top in math and science, and quite well at
reading. Even the best performing US state, Massachusetts, is significantly
below those in Math and Science [2].

Relatedly, China is catching up to the US in AI. [3] Most groundbreaking
research is still conducted in the Western hemisphere, but East Asia is
getting there despite much later starts. Also, many top researchers in Western
labs are from East Asia, who may later decide to move back once the
circumstances change.

Given the above factors, and only one-fourth the population (330 vs 1390
million), if/when the US cannot take advantage of best minds from these and
other countries, would it be able to maintain the technological lead for long?

If the answer is no, how about the military and diplomatic dominance, which
almost always follows economic and technological leads?

A possibility: If a larger portion of the GOP wakes up to the above, possibly
within the next 10 years, they will start to actively recruit high-skilled
immigrants, perhaps with some sort of point-based system as in Canada and
Australia. Whether it would be too late or not remains to be seen.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment)

[3] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/technology/china-us-ai-
ar...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/technology/china-us-ai-artificial-
intelligence.html)

------
suryacom
Here is the detailed comment by "Immigration Voice" on why the rule is bad for
everyone except special interest:

"...The new immigrant entrepreneur parole program will create a yet another
class of immigrants, albeit minority partners and working resources in the
start-up entity, who will be beholden and entirely dependent on the hand-
picked venture capital firms to maintain their status in United States in the
parole period and beyond as immigrant entrepreneur will have no clear pathway
to permanent residency. The proposed rule does not present a clear and fair
system in which immigrants will have the same rights as U.S. workers or U.S.
entrepreneurs in the marketplace. Therefore, the immigrant entrepreneur will
have no leverage to negotiate the terms of the contract and relationship with
and they will be susceptible to exploitation in a novel way as proposed in
this regulation. Even if a path to U.S. permanent residency is proposed, it
will in all likelihood, be at the expense of the current backlog of employment
based immigrants in the permanent residency process.

In essence, the new immigrant would pay (in the form of hefty investment in
the firm) for his or her travels to the United States only to remain in
bondage relationship to the hand-picked VC firm. If this is not a definition
of indentured servitude, then what is? Worse yet, the paroled immigrant has no
defined wage requirement as a worker in the firm and has very lenient “income
threshold” (400 percent of Federal Poverty Level for family size -
irrespective of the prevailing wages of the entrepreneur’s job functions) as
outlined in the proposed rule. It is well known that such system only
increases the demand for new immigrants because of their lower leverage and
bargaining power in such relationships, while the American workers and
entrepreneurs are discriminated against in the talent ecosystem.

In justifying the rule, DHS presents “significant public benefit” such as
entrepreneurship and job creation by immigrant founders. This reference to
various studies is grossly misleading in that DHS uses contributions of
immigrant founders without crediting the fact that most of these immigrant
founders had gained sufficient certainty in their immigration process by
obtaining a Green Card prior to making a significant investment in the
companies they founded.

The H-1B and L-1B programs were also created under the pretext of “job
creation and innovation in the United States” and 25 years after the inception
of these programs, the American high-skilled workforce consists of an
estimated 1.5 million high-skilled law-abiding immigrants who are captive to
their employers and cannot start their businesses and create jobs. This is
clearly detrimental to the prospects of our fellow American workers who
compete against the captive workforce of skilled immigrants who are favored by
bad employers for their lack of job mobility.

For the purpose of bringing in more immigrants from outside, DHS uses the
disguise of “significant public benefit” only to pile up fresh immigrants in
the Green Card backlogs in which the new immigrants have fewer rights (as will
clearly be the case with the proposed class of Entrepreneur parolees). It is
ironic that DHS did not use the same “significant public benefit” arguments
for providing rights such as job mobility and ability to start their own
companies by high skilled immigrants, who already have approved immigrant
petitions (I-140), understand the business environment in US, have great ideas
(and hold patents in many cases) and have investments to start their
businesses. But somehow DHS and Administration is very selective in applying
the same “significant public benefit” argument for NOT letting people with
approved immigrant petitions to start their companies. This clearly raises
doubts as to whether any economic argument by the DHS in the rule making
process is trustworthy. The proposed regulation ensures that there will be
absolutely zero “significant public benefit”. Instead, the proposed regulation
is only designed for “significant benefit of hand-picked Venture
Capitalists”...."

Complete comment:
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwdh5aYDQTwIbGVkR2Z6LV9FVTA...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwdh5aYDQTwIbGVkR2Z6LV9FVTA/view)

~~~
calvinbhai
Thanks for posting this! I too have many of these reservations about the new
rule. Totally agree with that comment by Immigration Voice!

------
soldierofhayley
Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to
society. At the very least these people pay some taxes instead of being a
drain on society.

~~~
dgfgfdagasdfgfa
What, exactly, do landlords contribute to society? Their assets ARE their
value. Frankly, my landlord could die and the only people who would care would
be the banks.

All money means is that you convinced someone else to give you money at some
point in life.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>What, exactly, do landlords contribute to society?

Efficient allocation of resources to property development. Although that's
just a technical distinction, you can get rid of it by separating out the
improved vs unimproved value of land (the former is much less problematic than
the latter).

>All money means is that you convinced someone else to give you money at some
point in life.

Presumably, the convincing is because giving you money is better than the
alternatives.

~~~
dgfgfdagasdfgfa
So—this means the value of a landlord is directly proportional to the
minimization of their profits.

Unfortunately, that's also more than you can expect from humans who know they
can charge more and find tenants.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Yeah, that's how capital markets work in general. If you can charge more and
still find a tenant, you're replacing low-value land use with higher-value
land use. This is particularly true in commercial real estate. Though that's
kind of a side issue to my original point: the excess profits attracts and
incentivizes similar investment, which increases the cost of investment, which
lowers profit down to the general waterline of the economy.

~~~
dgfgfdagasdfgfa
If anything, this has convinced me that public transit and other public
services should be funded entirely with property tax.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Georgism brings up some really fantastic points along this line.

If you want to be technically pedantic, exclude the value of improvements on
the property. You don't really want to tax the act of replacing an empty lot
with a $10MM factory. You do want to tax the right to use land within the
catchment of the various services the state provides. Land isn't produced, so
you can't disincentivize producing it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

------
Software_Sucks
God forbid that Americans want to hire and grow American talent, right guys? I
mean that's just awful.

~~~
onion2k
I'm find it surprising that some Americans don't think their country is big
enough or their economy is strong enough to support both local entrepreneurs
_and_ foreign entrepreneurs who want to build businesses in the USA. You don't
have to choose - you can have both.

~~~
Software_Sucks
I don't think people have a problem with foreign entrepreneurs who want to
build businesses here. They have a problem with them not hiring the people who
actually live here.

------
al452
You lost me at "Trump administration has plan".

