Slashdot Mirror


White House Is Planning To Let More Foreign Entrepreneurs Work In the US (recode.net)

Peter Hudson writes from a report via Recode: "After failing to get Congress to pass a 'startup visa' as part of broad immigration reform, the Obama administration is moving ahead with an alternative that would allow overseas entrepreneurs to live in the U.S. for up to five years to help build a company," reports Recode. "Already speaking out in favor of the new rules is PayPal co-founder Max Levchin: 'I believe that the most promising entrepreneurs from around the world should have the same opportunity I had -- the chance to deliver on their potential, here in America.' Levchin moved to the U.S. from the Soviet Union in 1991." There are three conditions that need to be met in order to be eligible to work in the U.S. under the new rule: the foreigner would have to own at least 15 percent of a U.S.-based startup, the foreigner would need to have a central role in the startup's operations, and the startup would need to have "potential for rapid business growth and job creation." The third requirement could be met by having at least $100,000 in government grants or $345,000 invested from U.S. venture investors. "Under [the International Entrepreneur Rule (PDF)] being formally proposed on Friday, the Department of Homeland Security would be empowered to use its existing authority to allow entrepreneurs to legally work in the country for two years, possibly followed by a one-time three-year extension," reports Recode. "While the public will have 45 days to comment, the rules aren't subject to congressional approval."

69 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Why do we even have congress? by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "the rules aren't subject to congressional approval" - a lot of "laws" have passed since Bush onwards that are no longer subject to congressional approval. They're just a source of comedic entertainment any other time, why do we even have congress or a judiciary for that matter? It didn't pass congress properly, let's just make it a presidential order.

    If anything, you should vote for Trump because he's too stupid to realize he can pull legalistic shit like this, perhaps "the people" can restore some of the balance and take it away from the attorneys-in-charge. That or Gary Johnson/Jill Stein - may not be ideal but anything is better than an extension of these Bush-Obama policies.

    Either way, I'm sure this won't be abused. Come to the US, get $500k in funds, you just have to promise us to create some jobs in the next 5 years even though our own startups fail 90% of the time this won't be a problem for you. If anything, give ANY startup in the US access to the same funds. I sure could use them, I'm an immigrant even.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Why do we even have congress? by geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If anything, you should vote for Trump because he's too stupid

      Yes he's become a billionaire and stayed one for 40 years because he's "stupid." You fucking leftists need a new line. Calling everyone you disagree with stupid has worn itself out. You're just a tired fucking meme at this point.

    2. Re:Why do we even have congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait, they are giving them money too? I have a legit startup I want to fund and start, without selling my soul or controlling interest.. WTF I am a citizen of this country... WTF is wrong with this world...

    3. Re:Why do we even have congress? by avandesande · · Score: 2

      A nation with no laws is no longer a nation.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re: Why do we even have congress? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Trump is a leftist (relatively speaking); this is all an act... and you fell for it, moron.

    5. Re:Why do we even have congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you happen to be a white man, be careful they don't take away your startup to give to some minority or immigrant. "You didn't build that!"

    6. Re:Why do we even have congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump was born into a wealthy family, used his father's name to garner investment, inherited a ton of cash and he would actually be worth billions more had he invested in index funds. But hey facts smatchs :)

    7. Re: Why do we even have congress? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I agree that having THIS CONgress is worthless. Few of them , esp in the GOP have done a fucking thing. Hopefully most other ppl are more intelligent than you and know that these last 2 CONgress are in official history as America's worst congresses. Yes, historian rank them as having accomplished the least even when we need them so badly. They have submitted the fewest number of bills. Hopefully, the GOP loss BOTH houses of CONgress and the GOP then breaks up.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re: Why do we even have congress? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I always laugh at ppl like you. You will claim that far right fascists are actually liberal. For example, YOU have called W liberal. Yet, since the great depression, he is considered the most conservative president by historical ranking. Much more so than even reagan. Basically, you have to go back to Harding and Coolidge to get presidents that conservative. And now, you claim that another far right fascists like trump is a liberal even though his policies are further right than Coolidge and harding. Amazing

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re: Why do we even have congress? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      A nation with a CONgress like our last 2 has always been in a third world nation.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re: Why do we even have congress? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      A nation with a CONgress like our last 2 has always been in a third world nation.

      Reminds me of the old joke "What's the opposite of PROgress?"
      CONgress.

    11. Re:Why do we even have congress? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      FYI, his taxes would not show if he was or was not a billionaire, as the only thing that shows on taxes is income, not investments. The only thing you will find in his taxes is how much money he paid himself, and how much taxes he paid on that.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:Why do we even have congress? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      APK, your posts stalking and trolling me are HILARIOUS! Please, keep it up, the attention is wonderful.

      Perhaps you should stop hiding behind your fake third party persona? No one thinks that this isn't you stalking all my posts acting like a concerned third party.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:Why do we even have congress? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Says APK, the coward who posts off topic all the time, trolls and stalks me across all of Slashdot, and accuses me of lying when I have quite honestly told you I won't give you the ability to harass me in real life like you do here by telling you who I am.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re: Why do we even have congress? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      What is funny is that my android is the one pushing that. I just let it autocorrect to this, since it is right.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  2. So basically visa's for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For sale for about $345k plus whatever the 'service change' from any venture firm is; or if your prior donations got you some 100k in gov. grant goodies.

    1. Re:So basically visa's for sale by nbauman · · Score: 1

      You could open a restaurant, right?

    2. Re:So basically visa's for sale by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, that's nothing new. Rich people have always been welcome to settle anywhere they want. In the past there have been racial quotas in US immigration policy, but even those were relaxed for people who could demonstrate they have money (e.g. Chinese merchants).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:So basically visa's for sale by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons for having an immigration policy is so that the government-provided services don't get overwhelmed, as seems to be a major fear in Europe with the Syrian refugees. To that end, only a certain number of immigrants are allowed in, to reduce the shock to those services. A wealthy foreigner is less likely to have a large burden on those services, and by spending money in the US and paying taxes to the US governments, may even contribute more than they cost.

      It's not fair, and it assumes a large number of variables, but it's not necessarily wrong.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:So basically visa's for sale by ccguy · · Score: 1

      Yes. But this is _nothing different_ to the already existing E-2 visa which will allow you to open a business (any business) in the US and leave here 3 or 5 years (depending on however processes your visa at the embassy) and can be extended indefinitely.

      You need to put money at risk (a substantial sum, around $100,000 is recommended by most lawyers) before getting the visa but other than that if the business plan is sound it's likely to get approved.

      Yes, it can be used to open a restaurant. That's fine, as long as you hire people who is already allowed to work in the US.

      How could this possibly hurt the US economy or its workers? It's just a new business, with foreign money on the line, that must hire people in order to have the visa extended.

    5. Re:So basically visa's for sale by nbauman · · Score: 2

      How could this possibly hurt the US economy or its workers? It's just a new business, with foreign money on the line, that must hire people in order to have the visa extended.

      Since you ask --

      The Wall Street Journal did a story after the Oakland, California race riots, to try to find the root causes of the riots.

      A Korean grocery store owner made the news at the time because he and his relatives protected his store with shotguns.

      The WSJ reported that he had been an officer in the Korean army. That's why they thought of defending their store with guns. (From other stories in the WSJ and elsewhere, I read that the Korean army at that time was particularly corrupt, in terms of giving military contracts to relatives of well-connected politicians and officers, etc. In New York City, according to the New York Times and everybody who knows what's going on, including real estate dealers and immigration lawyers, foreign investors from every corrupt country in the world are buying up New York real estate. But put that aside for the moment.)

      The Korean owners came to this country through one of these investment provisions, which were even more lenient back then, and they brought their whole family.

      Maybe it was a legitimate business operation that they thought would be profitable.

      But any money they made out of a grocery in Oakland was insignificant compared to the financial benefits of moving their families to the U.S. and having their children go to college here and grow up with the opportunities here, as compared to the opportunities back in Korea.

      (I know a Korean surgeon, who I think was born here, who is making at least $300,000 a year, which is much more than he could make back in Korea.)

      The WSJ reporter found a black guy who had an auto repair shop right by the Korean grocery. The Koreans wanted to expand, and get a warehouse. The black guy also wanted to expand, and open a new facility. They both wanted the same industrial space nearby. The Korean guy outbid the black guy. The Korean guy had an easy time getting bank credit for the space, and the black guy couldn't get credit. So the Korean guy got the space.

      There are some people (particularly on the WSJ editorial page) who say that the free market is the will of God, and the outcome of the free market is always good. They would say (without even needing to investigate the facts) that the Korean grocers would of necessity contribute more to the economy than the black auto repair guy. Maybe. But I'm not convinced.

      The first lesson in this WSJ story is that immigration and foreign investment makes winners and losers. The black auto repair guy was a loser. Maybe he deserved to lose. But I'm not comfortable with the idea of a Korean military officer coming to Oakland with this wealth of mysterious origin and outbidding this hard-working black guy. You can work hard at your business and they can beat you just because they have access to more capital.

      The second lesson that I would draw from it is, I'm not sure that these Korean grocers that we used to see all around New York City are such good businessmen or that they contribute that much to the economy. The purpose of their grocery store isn't to provide the best goods and services to their customers, or to provide good jobs to the workers in the neighborhood. The purpose of the grocery store is to get American citizenship for their families, and once they've done that they can (and do) close the store and leave.

      After all, you don't have an efficient free market if people are running a business not to maximize their profits but for an ulterior purpose, like getting residency and citizenship.

      I'm not singling out Koreans. I could tell a similar story about immigrants from any corrupt country. Russia, Haiti, and Saudi Arabia are high on the list lately.

      If foreigners are willing and able to come in and contribute to this country, fine. But there are winners and losers, and the way our country is run, there are a lot of losers.

    6. Re:So basically visa's for sale by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      allow you to open a business (any business) in the US and leave here 3 or 5 years

      Seems like a stupid idea. If I opened a business I'd rather be as close as possible in the initial phase rather than fucking off somewhere else.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Constitution is so inconvenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    President can't make laws so he just makes rules?

    That's some beyond Andrew Jackson level action there.

    This United States is a government of separate powers. Congress, the opposite of progress, makes the laws. The Supreme Court, usually by not doing anything, judges the laws. And the President? That's just a certain civil servant in the bureaucracy that implements the laws. Lots of responsibility and has to approve anything coming out of Congress. But Congress can still override him if they can quit bickering for 10 minutes about the plushness of their revolving doors.

    People need to stop thinking the US President is some kind of King who makes, judges and tasks the laws of the land. The first person who needs to remember this basic civics lesson is the President himself.

    Stop writing laws through treaties and directives. The next administration may not be so kind to your interests once you are an ex-President.

    But as long as I'm fantasizing about a working government I might as well ask that Congress stop passing laws written by lobbyists and the ultra rich to protect their money.

    1. Re:Constitution is so inconvenient by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      The legislature already passed the laws granting power to the Executive branch. Those laws were written loosely enough that the Executive branch can determine their own policies, and that's what's happening here.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Constitution is so inconvenient by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      President can't make laws so he just makes rules?

      Sounds like what Hillary has said she'll do about gun control if elected. If Congress won't give her what she wants, well, she'll do it with Executive Orders....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Constitution is so inconvenient by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      President can't make laws so he just makes rules?

      Sounds like what Hillary has said she'll do about gun control if elected. If Congress won't give her what she wants, well, she'll do it with Executive Orders....

      ...well then, your problem isn't with Hillary. It's with executive orders... However I'd say "be careful what you wish for" probably applies here.

    4. Re:Constitution is so inconvenient by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Executive orders should only apply to employees of the US government. They should not be a back door to passing laws.

  4. How does it work now for foreign owners? by swb · · Score: 2

    I'm curious how this works now for foreign owners of business assets.

    Are there rules in place now that prevent foreign investors from owning equity stakes in US companies (outside of sectors with existing statutory limits)?

    If a foreign investor owns an equity stake in a US company, are they prevented from coming to the US for business purposes? Do they need a special visa? Are there limits on how long they can stay to participate in this business under current rules?

    This proposal seems like a gold mine of loopholes that would seem to allow for further bulk import of workers. What's to prevent Tata from creating an XYZ Consultancy and selling the minimum share of the company to workers it wants to import? It's not hard to imagine all kinds of games they could play "loaning" the equity investment funds to the worker in India so that they appear in the US as legitimate stakeholders who have made their own investments.

    1. Re:How does it work now for foreign owners? by Pulzar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are there rules in place now that prevent foreign investors from owning equity stakes in US companies (outside of sectors with existing statutory limits)?

      No, you can invest as much as you want, but you can't work in US. That's the difference. Entrepreneurs want to start a company and do the work, and not simply invest in it.

      A funny (and common, especially among Canadians who have summer homes in Florida) example -- you can buy a house in US and rent it out and earn money from it. But, you can't come over and do any maintenance work on your rental property -- you have to pay someone to do it.

      Obviously, it's hard to enforce, but that's the law.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    2. Re:How does it work now for foreign owners? by swb · · Score: 1

      Does this stop the head of Volkswagen from traveling to the US to work-related meetings with leaders of Volkswagen US?

    3. Re:How does it work now for foreign owners? by peter.hudson452 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The process right now for entrepreneurs coming to the US is reasonably straight forward, but still requires a fair amount of paperwork. I'm a Canadian entrepreneur who recently moved to the Bay Area to work on my startup and I'm in the US on an L-1A VISA. The process wasn't too hard, but it was still about about 3 weeks worth of preparing documentation for US Immigration. I documented the entire process of getting an L-1A VISA here: https://www.startupgrind.com/b...

    4. Re:How does it work now for foreign owners? by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      Does this stop the head of Volkswagen from traveling to the US to work-related meetings with leaders of Volkswagen US?

      No, meetings are fine. Any business-related work in US is fine, as long as you're not getting paid by a US company for it. So, going to meetings, conferences, training, etc. is all fine. There are some grey areas when you work for a foreign subsidiary of a US company and you're staying for a week or longer at the US office... then it's often up to the security officer at the border to determine whether that's considered work or not -- many companies end up getting their employees short-term work visas for such trips, just in case.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  5. Fine by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    I'm all for bringing the talent to the US. If they have what it takes to start a successful company then fine, but their companies should employ local labor once started.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm all for bringing the talent to the US. If they have what it takes to start a successful company then fine, but their companies should employ local labor once started.

      You have the naiveté of a child.

      The labor will be sourced where the costs are lowest.

    2. Re:Fine by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then there is no more America. Everything we have been told to respect about it has been sold.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Fine by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I don't know what stories you were told that you're sad about not being true, but the US is largely the same as it has been for longer than you've been alive.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:Fine by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Early in my life corporations had to make do with talent that was available to them domestically, or deal with complicated immigration laws. Now it seems if they don't like the wages domestic workers are asking all they have to do is skip over to a third world country and tap a few people on the shoulder. If you think this doesn't sacrifice America's standing as a first world country as the years go on then you're not even worth responding to. We are already seeing increased violence as a result. Right now the violence flares up and is quelled. I predict it will worsen as the years go on if this doesn't change.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re: Fine by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in a natural order of things. I very strongly believe people living in India have every right to wealth and quality of living as we do here. The way to accomplish that is for India to raise their quality of living and not for us to sacrifice ours. The biggest problem is that we are not lowering our quality of life unilaterally. If there are any economic gains over there from 'globalization' most of the burden of it is being placed on the lower and middle classes over here. All of this is blatantly benefiting the wealthy class, and it is no wonder the wealth gap is widening. So while you argue that I am perceiving some sort of order of things, all I want is for everyone to be equal rather than have a world with a privileged few separated by a wide chasm and physical walls from a largely desperate population. Perhaps this is all because there aren't enough resources to support that many wealthy people. Fine, then let's all demand that wealth be decreased equally if that needs to happen.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re: Fine by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The way to accomplish that is for India to raise their quality of living and not for us to sacrifice ours.

      Those in possession of the wealth of India (i.e. those ostensibly in charge) would have to put the long-term well-being of society ahead of themselves. Won't happen; not there... or here.

    7. Re: Fine by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Fine, but then there *is* a natural order of things. Don't call down a middle class American for wanting *his* way of life to be protected at the cost of the average Indians when the wealthy (and leadership class as you accurately pointed out) of both nations are working on the same philosophy. Any way you look at it, there is nothing fair about this so don't look for some inherent fairness in the arguments.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re: Fine by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'd have to see some stats on the industry distribution of illegal immigration and working versus the number being allowed in today and where they work. If the number of illegal immigrants coming in and working for large corporations matches the number of immigrants being brought in on H1B today then you have a point. I would hazard a guess though that there have been less and the people who have come in illegally are quite limited as to what job they do when they get here; most often doing jobs that few people here really want. You could also raise the point that there was alcohol consumption during prohibition, but in reality the overall amount of alcohol that was consumed was much less.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  6. Sacrificing American opportunity by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    I'm all for bringing the talent to the US. If they have what it takes to start a successful company then fine, but their companies should employ local labor once started.

    Why should Americans have to sacrifice their own opportunities for this?

    And as others have pointed out, even voting for your congressperson wouldn't help.

    One wonders what voting is for, or what benefit we get from paying taxes.

    1. Re:Sacrificing American opportunity by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well more companies hiring Americans is a good thing. If these more companies do nothing but ship money overseas then they are nothing but leaches.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Sacrificing American opportunity by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well more companies hiring Americans is a good thing. If these more companies do nothing but ship money overseas then they are nothing but leaches.

      So what you're saying is, Americans can't be wealth builders any more, yes?

      We'll be the worker class, while everyone else in the world comes in and builds wealth for themselves.

      While there is a "slim positive view" you can put on the situation, the fact remains that it gives away opportunity to foreign people at the expense of Americans.

    3. Re:Sacrificing American opportunity by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I didn't see anywhere in here that said Americans *couldn't* start a company. They'll just have to compete harder for it.

      By the way, I find it kind of funny that I'm on this side of the conversation. Usually I am about protectionism.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Sacrificing American opportunity by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      By the way, I find it kind of funny that I'm on this side of the conversation. Usually I am about protectionism.

      You'll always find the most extreme views online. It's hard to support either side in these kinds of arguments, neither is willing to accept a bit of common sense.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    5. Re:Sacrificing American opportunity by ccguy · · Score: 1

      Well more companies hiring Americans is a good thing. If these more companies do nothing but ship money overseas then they are nothing but leaches.

      Do you realize that the wealthier _American_ companies keep their stash of money overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes?

    6. Re:Sacrificing American opportunity by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I'm against that too. How does that have a bearing on this?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. Same difference by Archtech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "...the Obama administration is moving ahead with an alternative that would allow overseas entrepreneurs to live in the U.S. for up to five years to help build a company..."

    After which time they can outsource it to the Far East like normal American entrepreneurs. Here today, gone tomorrow! Thanks to the miracle of globalization.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  8. Scary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    It seems to me the powers are creating a situation where you will have to make a certain level of wealth to live in the US. Everyone who is wealthy and successful in other countries will come here. If you can't make it here, you and your family will end up in a third world country to fight for the scraps.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  9. Who needs H1Bs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We'll just make the foreign workers "entrepreneurs", help them get a visa, and hire their "business" as a contractor. Genius. IBM's lobbyists are getting a bonus this quarter!

  10. Re:To get more lunatics, I suppose by DogDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    anyone who voluntarily moves to the US to found a company must be out of his mind.

    As opposed to where else, Mr. Wizard? I can't think of a better, easier place to start a business in the entire world than in the US.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  11. Subcontrator by BradMajors · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Paying a subcontractor $345,000 for 5 years of work is undercutting American wage rates.

  12. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was already approved by congress in 2014. The executive part was missing, legislative was in place already. Sigh...

  13. Re:To get more lunatics, I suppose by Pulzar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As opposed to where else, Mr. Wizard? I can't think of a better, easier place to start a business in the entire world than in the US.

    Exactly. People who haven't lived and worked in at least a couple of other countries don't realize how much better the opportunities to start something are here compared to most of the world... even with all the crap going on.

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  14. Re:To get more lunatics, I suppose by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    There are certainly easier places, with far less regulation. In some cases, if you have a sign, you have a legal company.

    That said, those places aren't "better", because your suppliers and customers are also little more than signs and promises. If a supplier takes your money and disappears, you have no recourse. If an engineer copies your trade secrets and starts his own competing business, the law doesn't protect you.

    Every restriction exists because someone abused the system at least once already.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  15. Foreign Entrepreneurs == Staffing Companies by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mostly Indians who hire only Indian visa workers. They call themselves "technology companies" and brag about all the jobs they create.

    1. Re:Foreign Entrepreneurs == Staffing Companies by ccguy · · Score: 1

      Mostly Indians who hire only Indian visa workers. They call themselves "technology companies" and brag about all the jobs they create.

      How is this representative of the many (and I mean many) companies that are started by foreigners that have zero intention of hiring nothing but the best they can afford?

    2. Re:Foreign Entrepreneurs == Staffing Companies by NewYork · · Score: 1
  16. Meh, we'd still get an injection of capital by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    in the meantime. I'm all for curtailing the H1-B program. Screw that, just eliminate it. But assuming this program isn't yet another back door into more H1-Bs (e.g. cheap labor for mega corps) why wouldn't we want foreigners bringing lots and lots of capital into our country. $100-$350k seems too low though. Just getting into a McDonald's franchise starts at over $1 mil. I don't think you could get a subway for that. Also, given that 90% of businesses fail in 5 years what do we do with them when they fail? If we're giving them citizenship either way then it seems like this is just a really, really expensive way to buy a visa. Kinda f'd up if that's the case.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. I think the difference is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they'd have to be rocking some capital (summary says $100k in gov't grants or $350k of their own money). This almost sounds like a really expensive way to buy yourself into America. Still, encouraging folks with resources to immigrate really is a good thing. It's the code monkeys I'd like to exclude.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think the difference is by vovin · · Score: 1

      The *current* E2 requirement is basically 1 Million USD investment at risk and Documentation of 10 jobs created by said investment.

      Even the old Canada (similar system) has bumped from a pathetic 100k upto 500k to 1M, due to abuses. They also have a problem where
      immigrants can show a lesser amount when settling in Toronto ... but the majority get in and immediately relocate to Vancouver.
      If you have been to both cities you know why :-)

      So this is really a seems to be step backwards in terms of helping ensuring that investment based visas are not being further abused.

      Heck this will seriously help some people I know so in a way I'm happy for them, however I don't think this is really a good thing for the country as a whole.
      Perhaps this is yet another hint is starting to take a serious downward spiral .. or maybe it's just another big FU by Obama, who knows?

  18. Mod parent up by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I was wondering how this was going to be used to bring cheap labor in. Parent just nailed it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. Re:Government Grants??? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    A government grant if he's going to come here to do something useful. What we definitely do not need more of is entrepreneurs, we need people who are going to work for a living, stay here and invest. We produce useless business types by the metric ton, we need to find a way to make them our chief export.

  20. Re:To get more lunatics, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What will your companies be without regulations and protections? So where will you be when it's no longer funded because you've evaded tax too long and moves money elsewhere?

  21. Re: Government Grants??? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    Yeah I didn't set my sarcasm flags loudly enough. Clearly I do not see any of this as "useful". Our economy is based on productivity, what business leaders do is usually orthogonal to that, often directly to avoid it.

  22. More Citizen Hatred. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    How many of these results in citizens being hired versus non-citizens? Not enough.

    If the guest worker programs are any guide, these individuals would just hire from likeminded non-citizens.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  23. Re:wall build build wall walllllsss1!1 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Hillary, is that you?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  24. Re:wall build build wall walllllsss1!1 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    3 you too APK, thanks for all the attention, it really makes me feel loved back.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?