Slashdot Mirror


Trump Plans To Dismantle Obama-Era 'Startup Visa' (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A regulation from the Obama administration that would have allowed foreign-born entrepreneurs who raise investor cash to build their startups in the U.S. won't be allowed to go into effect. The Department of Homeland Security will file an official notice to delay the International Entrepreneur Rule for eight months. The intention is to eliminate the rule entirely, according to sources briefed on the matter who spoke to The Wall Street Journal. The decision isn't final, and a DHS spokesperson told the WSJ that the department "cannot speculate" on the outcome of the review. The International Entrepreneur Rule, signed by former President Obama days before he left office in January, doesn't offer a visa but rather a type of "parole" that would allow immigrants to stay in the U.S. temporarily as long as they meet certain requirements. In order to qualify, a foreign entrepreneur has to raise at least $250,000 from well-known U.S. investors. The rule grants a stay in the U.S. of 30 months, which can be extended for an additional 30 months. Founders can't apply for a green card during that time. DHS has estimated about 3,000 entrepreneurs would qualify under the rule.

320 comments

  1. A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now let's also kick out all the H-1B Syrian refugees that are taking our IT jobs away. Can anyone justify letting them remain in our country? I think not.

    1. Re:A good first step by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what's good about this step. The argument against H1Bs is that companies like Infosys and Tata abuse them to bring in tons of unskilled workers at low wages and displace a bunch of US jobs in doing so.

      That argument doesn't apply to this scheme. This scheme in fact involves creating US jobs, so why on earth would you want to shut it down?

    2. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      'Cause Obama did it.

      That seems to be the guiding light behind a lot of stuff Trump is doing. If it was a policy pushed by Obama, Trump wants it off the books. It doesn't matter if it is something Trump would nominally support, if it was done by Obama, Trump is going to get it changed. Had Obama built a 30' wall all along the Mexican border and gotten Mexico to pay for it, Trump would be tearing it down. The guy's got a raging hard-on for destroying Obama's legacy.

    3. Re:A good first step by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      This scheme DOES NOT create U.S. jobs.

      "..would allow immigrants to stay in the U.S. temporarily as long as they meet certain requirements. In order to qualify, a foreign entrepreneur has to raise at least $250,000 from well-known U.S. investors."

      It's about raising capital NOT creating jobs. When it finally comes time to creating a business that eventual hires people, those hires can easily be H1B visa holders.

      Think before posting.

    4. Re:A good first step by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What on earth do you think that raised capitol was going to be spent on?

      Hint - when people raise capitol for a startup, it's because they need to employ people to do work to get the company moving.

    5. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the H-1Bs Trump is going to allow if tech companies sign on to his IT deal? How gullible you Trumpets are.

    6. Re:A good first step by Desler · · Score: 1

      Startups don't employ people? Since when?

    7. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they could just as easily not be.

    8. Re:A good first step by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Troll

      Get off your high horse. Trump doesn't support legalising illegals. They want to get into America, make them do it legally. Force those rich people to hire good old fashioned Americans to clean their offices and houses. They'll increase the quality of life for Americans. For once you have a president that is by the Americans and for the Americans. It's hilarious that a CEO is your first real president who isn't owned by private corporations.

    9. Re:A good first step by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the reforms the Trump administration are doing to immigration are not about, and never have been about, jobs. That's something Slashdotters have read into it because Slashdotters are convinced rightly or wrongly (actually the issue has a hell of a lot of nuance, so it's both) that H1-Bs negatively impact all of them, and H1-Bs are a type of visa, and the Trump admin has promised to reduce the number of immigrants, and so they read it as "Hey, Trump may be a {insert the long list of many legitimate reasons to worry about Trump here}, but at least he'll do something about H1-Bs because he's anti-immigration!"

      It's not about protecting jobs. It's about keeping out foreigners.

      Trump began his campaign by a ride down an escalator, followed by a speech about a wall to keep Mexicans out of the country. Literally. Are Mexicans who come into this country without visas doing jobs that Americans are clamoring to do? When Trump explained, in that same speech, why he wanted that wall, he didn't talk about jobs. This was his argument:

      When Mexico sends its people, theyâ(TM)re not sending their best. Theyâ(TM)re not sending you. Theyâ(TM)re not sending you. Theyâ(TM)re sending people that have lots of problems and theyâ(TM)re bringing those problems with us. Theyâ(TM)re bringing drugs, theyâ(TM)re bringing crime, theyâ(TM)re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people

      This is not about jobs. This is about scapegoating immigrants for America's problems, and then "dealing" with immigrants as a substitute for dealing with the actual problems America has.

      Kicking out potential entrepreneurs doesn't contradict that. Hell, it's a logical step: if immigrants are truly evil people responsible for America's problems, then surely encouraging them to take positions of power within the US is the last thing you want to happen.

      If that's the way they think, and they do, don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many jobs an immigrant can create. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many lives an immigrant doctor could save. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many scientific breakthroughs an immigrant scientist could make. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many bridges an immigrant engineer could make.

      If you address it in terms of a logic that does not start, at its base, with an inherent mistrust of immigrants, you're never going to understand it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:A good first step by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      "Terrorism" (tm)

    11. Re:A good first step by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only one problem: this is a way for immigrants to legally start businesses in the USA. It's now being shut down. How does that help with illegal immigration?

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    12. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sims rarely, anything Trump does is bad even if the media agr ea with it and everything Obama did was perfect.

    13. Re:A good first step by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then put a lid on those H1-Bs and only let the ones that create the jobs and not the ones that take the jobs in.

      It's your country, make your rules as they benefit YOU. There's no reason to keep the job creators out. An Indian creating jobs for people in your country? Hell, if you don't want him, send him over here!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:A good first step by Kierthos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It doesn't. But most of Trump's base doesn't know that or won't understand the difference. And Trump will no doubt spin this to sound like he's doing something to "protect American job/stop immigration".

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    15. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your entire post has left me shaking my head. I have a hard time figuring out where to even begin. Since I can't possibly address everything, I will pick on this:

      This is not about jobs. This is about scapegoating immigrants for America's problems, and then "dealing" with immigrants as a substitute for dealing with the actual problems America has.

      The problem with your logic is that you don't see people violating our laws and the government not enforcing the laws as a problem. We are going on 20 years of presidents picking and choosing which laws they like/dislike (Obama failing to enforce and vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Bush deciding that pesky things like the Fourth Amendment were more advisory in nature, and others). In fact it is the only thing the current generation has even seen presidents do.

      People have become so accustomed to cheering when their guy ignores the laws they don't like and screaming when the other side's guy ignores the laws they do like, that when somebody comes along and says he wants actually enforce the laws (motivation aside) everybody loses their minds.

      Personally, I think our immigration system is a train wreck. However, I believe that the rule of law is more important, so the proper sequence of events is enforce the laws on the books as they stand now so that the executive branch gets to what its like to actually do their jobs. Once that is in order people can start writing their representatives to get the mess fixed. People can even start writing their representatives now and get some work started on fixing that in parallel. What Trump is doing is an attempt to fix the problem. You probably disagree with his approach, but he is still trying to do something.

      The crazy thing is that Obama twice campaigned successfully by wooing the immigrant community with his promises of fixing immigration. He had the ability and opportunity to fix this. Both times he didn't lift a finger. Check that, he lifted one finger: his middle finger right in their faces.

      Like it or not, lots of people immigrate legally to the US, as much of a pain as it is. The way we have handled illegal immigration for the past few decades is just a slap in the face to people who have come here in a way that respects our laws.

    16. Re:A good first step by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      H-1Bs are one thing. The startup visa means that people take their hard-earned currency and go to a more friendly country, be it France, China, or even Russia.

      Turning away the idea-generators is the first step to becoming a footnote in history. History shows what happened to Portugal when they turned away Christopher Columbus.

    17. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't get an H1B employee in a company worth $250k. It's not like they're given away like candy, H1B requires legal teams and resources of an established company, not a startup.

    18. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?

      Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.

    19. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512445032/trump-acts-to-roll-back-regulations-on-businesses

    20. Re: A good first step by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $250k is going to cover two full time people for a year if you don't run your startup in Silicon Valley. In that year, you can then start you know... bringing in some money, so you can pay them more, or you can prove that your product is worthwhile and get hold of more funding.

      I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.

    21. Re:A good first step by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Easy: I raise $250K, invite someone i need for a temp job or other purpose, register a business. Do I need to invest all $250K at once? ever? Can I buy a Mazerati and say this is a business car? The dude can start driving a taxi over the next 5 years for all I care.

    22. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the laugh. American's don't want the jobs that the illegals had. Farm owners know that. Hell, there was even a bum that would rather stick to pan-handling despite being offered a job as a car salesman by a local dealership that he pan-handled near.

      Trump isn't owned by a private corporation or special interest? Get real. Aside from his own interests, look up Robert Mercer.

    23. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the reason you think that is because "Trump did it."

      The Resist! (Herp!) movement is no more interested in progress as long as Trump is in office than a certain segment of people were interested in progress while Obama was in office. It's not a matter of what is or isn't done but more of who does it. Trump could single handedly cure cancer, drop crime by 50% and employ 90% of the unemployed and you'd still find something to grumble on about. That's why people like you aren't worth listening to.

      This is what the two-party scam and Big Party goose stepping has bought you, America.

    24. Re:A good first step by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with your logic is that you don't see people violating our laws and the government not enforcing the laws as a problem. We are going on 20 years of presidents picking and choosing which laws they like/dislike (Obama failing to enforce and vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Bush deciding that pesky things like the Fourth Amendment were more advisory in nature, and others). In fact it is the only thing the current generation has even seen presidents do.

      The problem with your logic is that you think this is about illegal immigrants. Your entire rest of your post rests on the presumption that this is all Trump cares about. If that were the case, Slashdotters wouldn't be so excited by the notion he's going to "do something" about H1-Bs. Do you think H1-Bs are illegal? For the matter, look at what Trump is actually doing, to thunderous applause from his supporters: Do you think being a refugee and turning up at an American airport is illegal? Do you think that having a visa issued by an American embassy in a country that's suffering war or terrorism is illega?

      Look again at the words Trump uses. He's not talking about how Mexicans are here without valid visas and making some nuanced point about the consequences of immigration outside of the legal immigration framework that applies to everyone else.

      No, he's flat out stating that Mexicans who come to America are rapists, murderers, and drug pushers.

      You're another variant of the kind of person I'm criticizing, because you've decided to not to care about what Trumps actual reasons are, instead just hoping the fact he's "anti-immigration" means he'll fix an immigration-related issue you care about. He doesn't care about your reasons. He's not doing it for you. He's doing it because immigrants are a convenient scapegoat. His goal is to get you to blame America's problems on immigrants, because it's a hell of a lot easier to ban people from entering America than it is to fix America's problems for real.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    25. Re:A good first step by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      The problem I see is that, when it comes to so many of these violations, whether it be H-1B abuses, or hiring undocumented workers, everyone focuses on the individuals themselves, and not the bigger culprit - the businesses hiring them. Do people seriously think those employers don't know? Do people think those foreigners wouldn't come here, or stay here, if someone wasn't hiring them? The employers know exactly what they're doing, and they don't care.

      Why not? Because they're not going to get punished. Sure, their chicken processing plant might get raided and their workers deported, but the likelihood of enforcement actions that actually hit them are far, far lower. So instead they just hire the next batch of undocumented workers, and the cycle begins anew.

      You want to cut down on these abuses? Target the a**holes who are truly profiting from it, here in the USA, that are fueling the cycle. That's not likely to happen under the current administration though, not when Trump's own businesses have distinct preference for imported workers (now at least in most cases those are legal ones, though there are allegations from the past of violations).

    26. Re:A good first step by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the laugh. American's don't want the jobs that the illegals had.

      Funny...I just read on another article, that McDonald's was going to be laying some people off due to automation and kiosks....perhaps they would like to pick some fruits and veggies?

      At that level, a job is a job is a job....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    27. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're sounding like you came from reddits r/politics or shareblue/mediamatters camps. This is a site for intelligent discussion by computer professionals, not a brigade destination by paid shills.

      The original poster is asking what is the issue with the law as it stands - we'd like to see an analysis of its shortcomings - why it was really rescinded.

      Was it flakey enough previous that anyone could qualify for this on 'business visa' reasons?

      i've seen that happen in other countries, state someone is coming over for business, say the business needs == persons resume, something something startup, and the person is in. Startups can be 'oh we're working on it last 5 years, cough cough we're release it sometimes soon' - ie a lie. When investor money is involved, people want results, fast,

    28. Re:A good first step by knightghost · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It legalized more over-immigration of quasi-legal stays without a visa for 6 years, then likely a path to still stay after that.
      It all reduces USA citizen jobs and pay. That's wrong. Look at every other country in the world and the USA is the only one that doesn't protect their own people.
      A big reason why Clinton lost was her promise to Wall Street for open borders. Americans told her to fuck off because of it.

    29. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Sure. It will cover salaries for two people for a year, if the founder who gets this visa doesn't draw any salary, and the startup doesn't need any goods or services on that year. How often is that going to happen? How often will a startup with that scope be doing anything economically or technically interesting? Does that really justify issuing a five-year visa for the founder?

    30. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a site for computer professionals discussing intelligently , not people from r/politics thinking with 'muh feelings' or paid schills.

      Probability on the law is that it was (like similar laws in other countries) not tight enough.

      State you're doing a startup, and you can sit around on your butt on US soil while 'working on it'.

      e.g. 'oh yeah, we've been working on it the last 5 years, we'll release sometime soon' - ie a lie.

      These laws can be used as a simple loophole to get around proper laws/vetting if not done correctly.

    31. Re:A good first step by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with your logic is that you don't see people violating our laws and the government not enforcing the laws as a problem

      The problem with your logic is you are putting words in his mouth and then arguing against statements he never made. He never said illegal immigration wasn't a problem. He was I believe inferring it wasn't as big of a problem as it is being made out to be, which is a fair point. Illegal immigration is arguably just an appropriate byproduct of failing immigration policies. Our country needs more workers willing to do jobs US citizens tend to find undesirable but that produce goods US citizens do find desirable at a low cost (like food). Unless we create a legal way to let millions of workers into this country to fill these jobs, we need illegal immigrants. The tragedy is how poorly these immigrants are treated, not that they are here in the first place. The thing to fix is to thank them for the risks they take to improve our country even as our country marginalizes them.

      Thankfully we have people willing to break our laws when they are unjust and harm our country, just like we had people willing to fight against slavery while that was still legal. The thought that the rule of law is more important than human decency is a horrible source of evil in this world. It is a shameful belief to hold.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    32. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bigger issue is what if the business is PURPOSEFULLY bogus just to gain entry. Seems to me like this program not only incentivizes visa fraud but also incentivizes financial scamming.

      The original purpose of this was a way for rich foreigners to buy entry to the USA. Step 1 - send $$$ to some US based company for some vague good or service. Step 2 - US company/person "invests" your money into some "startup".

      The real problem is this program also invites shady immigrants to try to raise $$$ from US citizens to do who knows what (fund terrorism?). How does that help us at all? It doesn't. Is there any audit of how the money gets spent or can it just be paid as salary to a bunch of other immigrant friends.

    33. Re:A good first step by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If they create too many jobs there won't be enough workers to keep the coalmines running!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It all reduces USA citizen jobs and pay.

      Why do you assume that? How does an immigrant starting a company in the US reduce the number of jobs and lower the pay of Americans?

      Does this mean if an immigrant decides to go to Canada instead and start a company there, that will raise the number of jobs and increase the pay of Americans?

    35. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the poor chap was probably mentally ill.

    36. Re: A good first step by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      This scam involves allowing cover for foreigners who are granted US investment dollars. How does this create more jobs vs if the money was given to US citizens and legal residents who would start businesses and create jobs?

      If you think about it logically, the net initial jobs created should be the same, but the net wealth that remains in the US will be greater with the removal of this policy.

      Anything pushed through last minute by an administration should be suspect. If this was such an awesome idea, why did it take be so long to get started? If it was such an awesome idea why wasn't it published and spoken about more? Why weren't Americans given time to consider it and provide feedback?

      When you look at it, it seems like a backdoor way for rich people to toss some cash to friends from outside the country and allow them to remain in the US.

      This is the part where your progressive default response is "You're such a racist!"

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    37. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully we have people willing to break our laws when they are unjust and harm our country, just like we had people willing to fight against slavery while that was still legal. The thought that the rule of law is more important than human decency is a horrible source of evil in this world. It is a shameful belief to hold.

      Ignoring the law shouldn't be the first action nor should it be a common thing especially in a democratic society. It undermines the legitimacy of democracy and invites political violence. Sure, there are times when violence is necessary to undue unjust laws when all other means have failed but... Is the current immigration law unjust? If so, how? Is it as bad as slavery? What needs to change?

      It has been 6 months for immigration law to be enforced and cries of injustice are over top. Ignoring laws that are not unjust de-legitimizes democracy.

    38. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure you've ever started a business or taken business classes, or understand the difference between equity, debt, revenue, and profit. Hopefully no startup is running at -100% profit margins. Most businesses operate in the -20% to +20% range. That means on $1mm in revenue, there companies that are bleeding $200k a year. By raising $250k in equity, such companies continue to survive, and grow. Companies typically have long-term debt that is 4 times revenue, or $4mm. By raising $250k, such companies continue to be able to make interest payments on their $4mm debt and meet all other payment obligations for the year. That is, due to leverage, a $250k equity investment allows a business with $1mm revenue to run a $4mm "credit card", which is used to pay employees or other purchases. There is significant economic activity achieved by that $4mm in expenditure and repayment. Defaulting on such expenses a zero-sum, whatever temporary gains were made through expenditure on credit will be zapped later on economic contraction due to non-payment of debt. It's well worth it (to society at large) to keep that $4mm in economic activity alive with $250k cash infusion.

      TL;DR: capital raised isn't going toward full-time salaries, it's going toward interest on much larger debt that goes toward full-time salaries and other purchases. (Quick side note: that's how your taxes work as well.. your taxes don't build roads or hospitals, those were all built on debt through muni bonds, your taxes just pay the interest payments and other obligations. We have a good 30yr history of never paying down the debt but just making minimum interest payments.)

    39. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been 6 months for immigration law to be enforced

      Deportations were higher under the Obama administration.

    40. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. But most of Trump's base doesn't know that or won't understand the difference. And Trump will no doubt spin this to sound like he's doing something to "protect American job/stop immigration".

      There is an old fable that is sometimes told as an example of the national mentality of Serbians. This Serbian farmer gets a visit from an angel who tells him that he has been granted one wish. The farmer thinks about it for a while and then says to the angel: 'kill my neighbour's prize bull'. The angel is puzzled by this and asks if that will make him happy? 'No', says the farmer 'but it will make my neighbour miserable'. I think quite a lot of Trump's base understands the difference very well, it's more a case of: 'If I'm miserably everybody else should be miserable too'. They elected Trump literally to fuck up the world for what they perceive as an 'liberal elite' that has made their lives miserable and they will rejoice at anything he does to make the lives of the 'liberal elite' even more miserable than before ... and yes, I'm perfectly aware of the irony of the fact that they go to Trump rallies and cheer like a bunch of lemmings when Trump tells them that he does not want poor people on his cabinet (Ewwww, poor people! Spicer!!! Where is that bottle of hand disinfectant?)

    41. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a way for immigrants to legally start businesses in the USA

      not really. FTA:

      signed by former President Obama days before he left office in January

      Just another abortive executive order designed to make the incoming adminstration look bad.

    42. Re: A good first step by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      You may not realize it, but wages in many areas of the US are around the $30,000 mark. 3 times $30,000 plus overheads is of the order of $150,000. That leaves $100,000 for other expenses.

      In that time, you can start actually making money.

    43. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with your logic is that you think this is about illegal immigrants. Your entire rest of your post rests on the presumption that this is all Trump cares about. If that were the case, Slashdotters wouldn't be so excited by the notion he's going to "do something" about H1-Bs. Do you think H1-Bs are illegal? For the matter, look at what Trump is actually doing, to thunderous applause from his supporters: Do you think being a refugee and turning up at an American airport is illegal? Do you think that having a visa issued by an American embassy in a country that's suffering war or terrorism is illega?

      I never said or implied any of those things. H-1B is an economic/jobs issue hiding in the immigration debate. Personally, I think H-1B is badly broken, but for economic reasons, not because I dislike immigrants or immigration. In fact, I come from a family of immigrants and I know many immigrants who have come here (legally) and done great things for their families, communities, and for the country. I think that we should help refugees, but I think throwing the doors open without acknowledging that we may in the process allow in those who wish to harm us and without trying to do something about that is disingenuous. Of course, we send lots of foreign aid to war ravaged places, but then that may not be enough and that is part of the debate in the current discourse on immigration policy.

      Look again at the words Trump uses. He's not talking about how Mexicans are here without valid visas and making some nuanced point about the consequences of immigration outside of the legal immigration framework that applies to everyone else.

      No, he's flat out stating that Mexicans who come to America are rapists, murderers, and drug pushers.

      Well, this is in fact true in many cases. How to do you think we end up with such a huge supply of illegal drugs here? Perhaps people order it through Amazon? Seriously, the truth is that many countries export good and bad people. Look at the Cuban community (I know a little something about this). Those who came in the "first wave" after the revolution were mostly educated and hard working. Those who came later (particularly during the Mariel boatlift) were mostly not; there were lots of criminals in the latter group. There are other immigrant communities in the US with similar issues. As much as people argue that Trump's statements make him prejudiced (hint: they are not racist, as Mexican is not a race), the evidence in the form of crime statistics shows that there is some truth to what he says.

      You're another variant of the kind of person I'm criticizing, because you've decided to not to care about what Trumps actual reasons are, instead just hoping the fact he's "anti-immigration" means he'll fix an immigration-related issue you care about. He doesn't care about your reasons. He's not doing it for you. He's doing it because immigrants are a convenient scapegoat. His goal is to get you to blame America's problems on immigrants, because it's a hell of a lot easier to ban people from entering America than it is to fix America's problems for real.

      See, you have completely missed the mark with me. I come from an immigrant family, have many immigrant friends and colleagues, and am decidedly in favor of immigration. However, I believe that those who seek to come to the US without respect for its laws should not be allowed stay or should not be allowed in to begin with.

      You imply that I somehow agree with Trump's position on immigration, when I said no such thing. What I agree with him on is that the government has been dysfunctional and too meddlesome for far too long. (It is interesting to note that Obama made transparency a key component of his campaigns, which I thought was a good thing and a great first step to fixing the dysfunction in the federal government, but then did nothing meaningful to actually deliver; in fact he continued with the dr

    44. Re:A good first step by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      'Cause Obama did it.

      That seems to be the guiding light behind a lot of stuff Trump is doing. If it was a policy pushed by Obama, Trump wants it off the books.

      Way to stoke the fire of partisan politics. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has to do with American citizens being essentially forced to give opportunities in their own country away to foreigners because of corporate greed and in this case, it's venture capitalist greed. Americans are being thrown under the bus but this greed.

      Look, I have empathy for the rest of the world but I have empathy for my homeland first. If you can't understand that, you should move out of this country because you're not supporting it.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    45. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      The problem with your logic is you are putting words in his mouth and then arguing against statements he never made. He never said illegal immigration wasn't a problem. He was I believe inferring it wasn't as big of a problem as it is being made out to be, which is a fair point. Illegal immigration is arguably just an appropriate byproduct of failing immigration policies. Our country needs more workers willing to do jobs US citizens tend to find undesirable but that produce goods US citizens do find desirable at a low cost (like food). Unless we create a legal way to let millions of workers into this country to fill these jobs, we need illegal immigrants. The tragedy is how poorly these immigrants are treated, not that they are here in the first place. The thing to fix is to thank them for the risks they take to improve our country even as our country marginalizes them.

      If I put worse in his mount, then that was not my intention. However, I would no more thank someone for violating our immigration laws than I would thank someone for breaking into home and stealing. Also, you have created a false dichotomy the choice is not let in millions of immigrants willing to do undesirable jobs so we can have products or don't let them in and go without. We could let the marketplace figure out how to fill the gaps. Of course, that doesn't appeal to statists (not saying that you are one, just pointing it out).

      Thankfully we have people willing to break our laws when they are unjust and harm our country, just like we had people willing to fight against slavery while that was still legal. The thought that the rule of law is more important than human decency is a horrible source of evil in this world. It is a shameful belief to hold.

      You can't seriously compare the current immigration situation to slavery. The issue with slavery as an institution and the associated laws was that it removed inalienable rights from certain classes of people. Nobody has a right to enter another country. That sort of thing is a privilege. Now, you may think that we should extend the privilege to more people, slavery and immigration are nowhere close to related in the sense which you have connected them. I am curious what your basis is for declaring current immigration laws unjust? What human right are the violating?

    46. Re:A good first step by gtall · · Score: 1

      Bingo. In the animal kingdom, el Presidentie Tweetie would be pissing in all the corners a rival visited once before. He's about as sophisticated as a 12 year old.

    47. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that there have been people who started off with ten bucks in their pocket and landing in this country and doing something right? Jeezus..

    48. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it sound like Hitler won by a landslide. Trump lost the popular vote and it is well known that the electoral college is abused because of gerrymandering. Even more, close to half the US population doesn't vote, so basically said nothing. Americans said nothing about immigration.

    49. Re:A good first step by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      It's not about protecting jobs. It's about keeping out foreigners.

      You are making a wild ass claim here. Your claim is: because it keeps out foreigners, it can't be about protecting American interests, specifically jobs. That is a HUUUUUUGE logical fallacy. It's about BOTH. It's simple economics, it's the same problem with free trade agreements. Corporations have an interest in the cheapest possible labor. All they care about is the balance sheet. In this particular case, it has a detrimental ripple effect to the ACTUAL American citizens. We get screwed just so a bunch of investors and corporate executives can get more rich.

      Let me explain something to you, by adopting a liberal stance here, you are essentially supporting sweat shop labor. Do you think that helps the foreigners that you claim to care about? No. You perpetuate the problem and help them stay POVERTY. You treat them like second class citizens by paying them differently just because they're from a different country. That's discrimination is it not? What are you going to propose to solve that problem? That's what I thought.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    50. Re:A good first step by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Obama failing to enforce and vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act

      You lost all non-partisan credibility right there. The Defense of Marriage Act was a special interest proposition by Christians. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Just because you have your beliefs doesn't mean you get to use the government as a vehicle to force your beliefs on everybody. If you think that's the definition of marriage and your community thinks that, great. Support that in your community. Not everyone agrees with you or thinks your belief system is true. Get over it.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    51. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! It's time those lazy immigrant job creators get out of America. They're taking jobs away from our American job creators.

    52. Re: A good first step by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?

      Quite a few. The idea is not that this ends up being the sole source of funding for this company going forward.

      Real tech start-ups need millions in funding.

      By "real" do you mean those companies which create nothing, produce little, have no idea on how to make it profitable and yet are somehow valued at $1.9bn with 3800 employees? Then sure if your idea of a startup is SMS limitations on a global social platform and never making money then you will most definitely need millions in funding.

      Oh wait... No sorry I was wrong. The likes of Twitter and Facebook had no where near that kind of funding to start.

    53. Re:A good first step by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      However, I believe that the rule of law is more important, so the proper sequence of events is enforce the laws on the books as they stand now so that the executive branch gets to what its like to actually do their jobs

      I saw a lot of people speeding on the highway - maybe we should spend $20b to solve that problem because the rule of law is important.

    54. Re:A good first step by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Look at every other country in the world and the USA is the only one that doesn't protect their own people." - every whining, can't take the competition or is not a capable worker in that field says the same thing in every country. its the "i'm native so i should get special treatment and every good job fed to me on a spoon even though i am are not the best candidate" scenario. Its also probable that in IT the most mundane jobs are overpaid since IT became mainstream. Run of the mill IT workers should now get run of the mill pay rates and not specialist pay rates - that boat has sailed.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    55. Re: A good first step by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.

      And attempting to fast-track startups by not having to pay fair market value for the labor. Corporations are completely selfish. That's why they won't repatriate their taxes. That would theoretically support the actual country that afforded them the ability to even have a corporation but no, they'll find clever ways to not give back.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    56. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?

    57. Re:A good first step by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What on earth do you think that raised capitol was going to be spent on?

      Hint - when people raise capitol for a startup

      Your sentences don't parse. Why would raising the Capitol building in DC accomplish anything, and how can you "spend" a raised building?

    58. Re: A good first step by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      $250k is going to cover two full time people for a year if you don't run your startup in Silicon Valley. In that year, you can then start you know... bringing in some money, so you can pay them more, or you can prove that your product is worthwhile and get hold of more funding.

      I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.

      Let's go back in history to the 1980's, do you think anyone would have ever thought that they could run a company with two employees and somehow within 5 years be making millions in profit margin? If someone said that in the 1980's they would looked at as if they were out of their freaking minds. You want to talk about a sense of entitlement. This one is astonishing.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    59. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, there was even a bum that would rather stick to pan-handling despite being offered a job as a car salesman by a local dealership that he pan-handled near.

      Panhandlers can make a surprisingly large amount of money. Most likely he/she made a decent amount of money without the hard work of pushing sales.

    60. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surprised that most of the startups are 1-2 man gardening companies and the VC funding them happens to also be the sole customer which the startup doesn't charge for services.

    61. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is true that the electoral college is abused because of gerrymandering. The state borders constantly get moved so that the evil Repugs win. My house has changed states multiple times because of it.

      Reeeeeeeeee!

    62. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of a great meme picture.

      Democrats of 1863
      "Without slaves who will pick our crops?"

      Democrats of 2017
      "Without illegals who will pick our crops?"

    63. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You lost all non-partisan credibility right there. The Defense of Marriage Act was a special interest proposition by Christians. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Just because you have your beliefs doesn't mean you get to use the government as a vehicle to force your beliefs on everybody. If you think that's the definition of marriage and your community thinks that, great. Support that in your community. Not everyone agrees with you or thinks your belief system is true. Get over it.

      I am curious how you inferred my position on the Defense of Marriage Act from what I wrote. I assume you inferred something about my beliefs because you chose to see partisanship where there was none.

      What I stated was an objective fact: the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Bush. It therefore became the law of the land. If you carefully read the US Constitution it is the legislature's job to make the laws (with the President's signature or overriding a veto) and the executive's job to enforce the laws. We have lots of awful laws on the books and they should be repealed or stricken down whenever possible, but in accordance with the methods set out in the Constitution. However, to say that the executive has latitude to not enforce laws that they don't like threatens the integrity of the entire system of government.

      Suppose for a moment that Congress passes a law and the President rejects it with a veto. If Congress successfully overrides the veto and the law goes into effect anyway, can that President or future Presidents choose to ignore the law? Why or why not? If you believe that President Obama did the right thing by ignoring the Defense of Marriage Act, then did he do the right thing by also extra-judicially ordering the assassination of American citizens overseas? You see, I think that the latter was a violation of one or more laws as written (in addition to being an unconstitutional deprivation of the right to life), so it was wrong. Based on that, his decision to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act was also wrong. In the end, the Supreme Court effectively struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which settled that issue. My personal views on marriage, religion, etc., in no way enter into this.

    64. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      I saw a lot of people speeding on the highway - maybe we should spend $20b to solve that problem because the rule of law is important.

      It is important. You should take that matter up with the authorities in the jurisdiction that establishes and enforces the specific speed limit to which you are referring.

    65. Re:A good first step by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      It all reduces USA citizen jobs and pay.

      Why do you assume that?

      He assumes that because, like many economic illiterates, he believes the job market is zero-sum. If there are N jobs, and an immigrant takes one of them, then there are N-1 jobs left for real Americans. Of course this is total nonsense. Real economies don't work that way.

      an immigrant decides to go to Canada instead and start a company there

      Many other countries are far more enlightened about immigration. Immigration, especially of educated people, tends to create net jobs, and create better jobs. Instead of keeping them out, we should be trying to promote more immigration by marketing America as a destination for entrepreneurs, researchers, investors, etc.

    66. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losing modpoints to post this. Usually people don't take in money and immediately hire 100 people. They start with 1-2 and then grow over time.

      Real tech start-ups do this all the time. /Source: Am a VC

    67. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hi Trumpbot! How much does it pay per hour to lie about the dear leader professionally? I don't think I'd sell my values short like you did, but I'd like to know what I'm missing out on...

    68. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post left me highly disturbed. Your proposal that the rule of law is more important than any other consideration implies that the laws are clear, well thought out, fair, and morally defensible. We both know that there is plenty of historical precedent for unclear, short sighted, unfair, or downright morally abhorrent laws. We also know that laws are not changed by groups with a better idea - they are changed by groups with more influence. Instead, I posit that disobeying a law *can* be morally acceptable if your desire is to have the law changed to a form you believe would be more acceptable to those the law affects, but that doing so should give you no illusion that there will be no punishments for such an action if you are caught.

      In light of this, even if you are correct that Trump's underlying objective is to attempt to establish total rule of law, I *still* disagree with both him and you that this would be a good thing.

    69. Re: A good first step by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I don't believe the job market is zero-sum. I do believe that if these talented individuals would stay in their own country and build businesses there, the world would be more stable. It would promote the economies in their countries of origin and grow the possibilities for everyone else in those countries. People wouldn't illegally immigrate to the US if living was more viable where they lived.

      It's a form of imperialism for big American based multinationals to suck all the most talented from around the world out of the countries of their origin.

    70. Re: A good first step by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.

      I don't think people are saying you can't, rather that it is unlikely the visa is being used for this purpose.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    71. Re: A good first step by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's the "I am a citizen here" deal. If you don't like that go live in an amorphous fantasy land, perhaps in a MMORPG where you can be a "world citizen." Quit trying to ruin the real world for the rest of us.

    72. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to do you think we end up with such a huge supply of illegal drugs here?

      One word: Economics.

      The US (and EU) has a high demand for drugs (first worlders are rich and want to spend those riches on hookers and blow). And then there's comparative advantage: educated first worlders are better at making (well, designing) computers and high tech first world stuff, while less educated folks from Asia and SA are better at farming the raw materials towards drug production (and they could also supply the hookers in "hookers and blow")

      Thus, the flow of drugs is from those places in Asia/SA into US/EU, while the flow of first world designs goes the other direction.

      This is happening not because of some difference or deficiency in ethics or morality (here's a fact that'll piss of the religious conservative crowd: Mexicans and blacks are much more Christian and religious than their white American counterparts). It is simply economics, not so different than how so many manufacturing jobs went to China and so many call center jobs went to India.

      Building walls and cutting illegal immigration ain't gonna do much to change these economic conditions.

      I believe that those who seek to come to the US without respect for its laws should not be allowed stay or should not be allowed in to begin with.

      Of the estimated 11 to 14 million illegal immigrants, 6 to 7 million DID respect the law and entered the country with legal visas and want to work their way legally to become legal citizens. They overstay their visas because the government, moving at the speed of government, takes forever to process them.

      In other words, they aren't ignoring the law out of disrespect. It's the law that is ignoring them, branding them criminals instead of fixing the issues in the system.

      People keep worrying about the bruise instead of the sucking chest wound.

      The ones worrying about the bruise are, by and large, the Trump voters though. As GP said, Trump won them over with the illegal immigration rhetoric, not that government is inefficient and dysfunctional. If anything, Trump ran on the idea that the government is highly functional ...at being evil. Crooked Hillary! The Establishment and elites all conspired to screw you [the people]! The fake news media is a giant corporate machine out to get me [Trump]! Not a [Russian] puppet you're the puppet!

    73. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealth is wealth is wealth. If robots can do the job, fine. We should all have more free time. But only the very few will get profits from the AI revolution so unless we can find a way to split profits from this technology, a lot of people will have a lot of free time to find a way to get something to eat.

      And then when criminality becomes even more of an issue, we'll need killer robots to keep the system unjust!

    74. Re: A good first step by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?

      Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.

      Outside of SV, you can start a company or a franchise with (much) less than that. Sorry dude, the argument that this program does not create jobs is bullshit.

    75. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to take your nap grandpa, you're gettin' all cranky again

    76. Re: A good first step by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?

      And this will be bad because??????

    77. Re:A good first step by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      The argument against H1Bs is that companies like Infosys and Tata abuse them to bring in tons of unskilled workers ....

      Stop right there. "Unskilled"?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    78. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It legalized more over-immigration of quasi-legal stays without a visa for 6 years, then likely a path to still stay after that. It all reduces USA citizen jobs and pay. That's wrong. Look at every other country in the world and the USA is the only one that doesn't protect their own people.

      WTF are you talking about? TFA doesn't talk about H1B at all but rather about 'startup visa' for foreign investors.

      In order to qualify, a foreign entrepreneur has to raise at least $250,000 from well-known US investors. The rule grants a stay in the US of 30 months, which can be extended for an additional 30 months. Founders can't apply for a green card during that time.

      Also, don't you understand the quote above from TFA? That's what it said. No green card for founders (investors). Alternative page

    79. Re: A good first step by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?

      Let's not forget that two dudes started what looked like a company on a garage in the 80s and... we'll the rest is history.

      America has plenty of examples of successful companies that started with one or two people with nothing but their clothes on. Somewhere along the line that drive was replaced with nihilism. The rest is history.

      Nuking this program is just a sign of that.

    80. Re: A good first step by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.

      I don't think people are saying you can't, rather that it is unlikely the visa is being used for this purpose.

      To make that claim, them motherfuckers should be providing with evidence that shows that. Without this, such claims amount to nothing more than hand waving.

    81. Re: A good first step by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      You would know about twelve year old sophistication, you potty mouthed turd.

      Please grow up. Embrace adult conversation.

    82. Re: A good first step by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you've ever started a business or taken business classes, or understand the difference between equity, debt, revenue, and profit. Hopefully no startup is running at -100% profit margins. Most businesses operate in the -20% to +20% range. That means on $1mm in revenue, there companies that are bleeding $200k a year. By raising $250k in equity, such companies continue to survive, and grow. Companies typically have long-term debt that is 4 times revenue, or $4mm. By raising $250k, such companies continue to be able to make interest payments on their $4mm debt and meet all other payment obligations for the year. That is, due to leverage, a $250k equity investment allows a business with $1mm revenue to run a $4mm "credit card", which is used to pay employees or other purchases. There is significant economic activity achieved by that $4mm in expenditure and repayment. Defaulting on such expenses a zero-sum, whatever temporary gains were made through expenditure on credit will be zapped later on economic contraction due to non-payment of debt. It's well worth it (to society at large) to keep that $4mm in economic activity alive with $250k cash infusion.

      TL;DR: capital raised isn't going toward full-time salaries, it's going toward interest on much larger debt that goes toward full-time salaries and other purchases. (Quick side note: that's how your taxes work as well.. your taxes don't build roads or hospitals, those were all built on debt through muni bonds, your taxes just pay the interest payments and other obligations. We have a good 30yr history of never paying down the debt but just making minimum interest payments.)

      Thank you. Finally someone who gets how a business actually runs.

    83. Re: A good first step by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      So a Syrian software engineer should stay in the ruins of Allepo and start his startup there?

      When people migrate and start companies outside their native land, they create networks that benefit their home countries. An Irish software engineer goes to Silicon Valley, starts a successful startup, then eventually partners with people back in Ireland where he can sell his stuff and create more business opportunities for people there.

      "If people were goods, the solution to different wage and employment levels would be obvious: encourage the transfer of ‘surplus' people from poorer to richer nation states, which should benefit individuals whose incomes rise, increase global GDP, and promote convergence in wages and opportunities between sending and receiving areas that eventually reduces migration pressures."

      Migration and development

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    84. Re: A good first step by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there have been people who started off with ten bucks in their pocket and landing in this country and doing something right? Jeezus..

      Indeed. Hell, I know of this person (true story) that came here as a student with literally nothing other than his clothes (his family could only get enough for a one-way trip.) He was accepted into a graduate engineering program in the US, but he (and his family literally) had nothing left when he finally came.

      No cash. No car. No place to stay. Just the admissions letter. Imagine that. That person went to become a senior engineering manager at a blue chip company.

      That's drive. That's something people in this country had. All they have now is nihilism. Clapping for this program to be axed is testament of that.

    85. Re:A good first step by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

      This government does not give a shit about its citizens. Its quite possible that no government in America in the future will either. They care only about enriching themselves and their friends in the guise of helping the "Middle Class" Unions were created to care for the workers that united through the power of collective bargaining because corporations were literally killing their workers. Our government now writes laws to limit the power of unions and expand the power of the corporations that buy them. In most of the rest of the world corruption is in your face. You bribe the officer that stops you for speeding, here you buy a politician. Trump and his cronies are no different.

    86. Re: A good first step by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?

      Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.

      Are you expecting a "startup" company to be a corporation??? What is the minimum number of employees in order to be a U.S. company? If you can answer that, you will understand that $250k is more than enough to establish and run a company in the U.S. for at least a year.

    87. Re: A good first step by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It can also cover the purchase of a convenience store, not outright, but nice down payment. SBA will give you a loan for the rest.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    88. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These "entrepreneurs" are usually wealthy Chinese women sent over with money to open a coffee shop and select a white bitch as a surrogate mother to give birth to her child and hedge their citizenship.

    89. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Open a franchise? Which franchise has fees and other start-up costs of less than $250k?

      As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, offering visas for people who get US seed money for what amounts to a convenience store seems like the kind of program that should be shut down.

    90. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably disagree with his approach, but he is still trying to do something.

      He is trying to do something, alright. But after I've been observing him for 5 months in the office, I highly doubt anything good will come out. Also, any thing (if at all) he does will some sort benefit him and/or his immediate family and NOT the U.S. CITIZEN. That's exactly his approach.

    91. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      If the person getting a visa is getting $250k in VC, the startup will probably be structured as a corporation so that the investors can record their ownership.

      You seem to be forgetting the premises and purposes of this visa program. In context, $250k does not seem like a sufficiently high threshold for how much the founder and his/her idea is perceived to be worth.

    92. Re:A good first step by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Also, you have created a false dichotomy the choice is not let in millions of immigrants willing to do undesirable jobs so we can have products or don't let them in and go without. We could let the marketplace figure out how to fill the gaps.

      I'm just curious on this statement. Letting marketplace figure out by itself? So who do you think will be affected the most? I understand that the solution to this type of workers isn't available at the moment, but I am curious how severe the impact would be to the people you think. Entitlement is not something people would let go easily (and most never let it go no matter what). You may not feel or see the severity of your suggestion because either you are well off for yourself or the impact isn't here yet. Though, I am not certain it is a really good idea letting marketplace figure itself out because then people have to put their trust on, you know who...

    93. Re: A good first step by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      these talented individuals would stay in their own country and build businesses there

      It is orders of magnitude harder to "start a business" in a place like, say, India. There is a good reason that Indian-Americans have a median income of over $100,000 while Indian-Indians have a median income of less than $1,600. America is far more friendly to entrepreneurs, far less corrupt, has far more productive potential employees, and has far better infrastructure.

      If you had a bushel of seed corn, would you cast it on fertile soil, or cast it into the desert? Smart productive people are humanity's seed corn. In America, they will create jobs, new products, and new knowledge. Back home, their capabilities will be squandered.

      Citations:
      American median household income by ethnicity. Indian Americans are #1.
      Ease of doing business. America is #8. India is #130.

    94. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      So, your theory is that we need to provide visas for people who get seed money for their startup, so that they can immediately use that money to borrow more money to fund their brand new startup that had no income stream, but they'll be approved for a loan because their brand new startup has $1m annual burn rate on $800k annual revenue?

      Maybe you missed the part where this was meant for start-ups, which by definition don't have a history showing their revenue.

    95. Re:A good first step by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      but more voters voted for Clinton than Trump. Your point is null.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    96. Re: A good first step by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      so you are Irish then?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    97. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro. To bad it's clearly irrelevant to the topic of buying a visa with a $250k loan from US investors -- unless you think those investors will be inspiring that kind of drive, like by threatening kneecaps.

    98. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off your high horse. Trump doesn't support legalising illegals. They want to get into America, make them do it legally. Force those rich people to hire good old fashioned Americans to clean their offices and houses. They'll increase the quality of life for Americans. For once you have a president that is by the Americans and for the Americans. It's hilarious that a CEO is your first real president who isn't owned by private corporations.

      Are you suggesting that, because we're tired of paying for illegals, we should spend shit-loads of money to round them all up and kick them out? Then, on top of that, because 'Muricans want to be paid a decent wage, (and as any cost accountant knows, the cost of wages has to be built into the final consumer price of the product) we should make all the products we buy cost 10 times more?

      Where are we getting all this money from? Tax cuts for the rich?

    99. Re: A good first step by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?

      Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.

      When in Start-up mode, that $250k won't cover salaries - it'll cover office space, equipment, securing loans, etc getting things going.

      Startups are not expected to make a profit for the first 5-7 years. Yes, they will start paying out salaries before then - but the people at the top are typically expected to go without until the business starts to have a positive balance sheet.

      So of that $250k, you might get a secretary/office admin (to look after the basics), and a couple junior type people that will be reporting to the unpaid senior staff (paid in stock grants should the company succeed or be sold).

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    100. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      So, you're hiring two or three cheap people, and expecting at least two more to work for a promise, all using maybe $250k of money from investors who were already in the US.

      Why is this worth bending or breaking immigration law?

    101. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      I understand what you mean. What we have now is essentially a marketplace approach. People are willing to pay so much and in order to keep prices at the right point, producers have an incentive to pay lower wages, which is probably a driver of the current situation with immigration, at least in areas like agriculture.

      The marketplace adapts pretty well to even significant changes. For example, there was a story here on Slashdot recently where I think the CEO of McDonald's (I am not certain about that, it may have been another fast food company) basically said that a universal $15 per hour minimum wage would really spur them toward to elimination of humans in certain jobs and replacing them with machines. If there is no longer a supply of people willing to work at subhuman wages (either because we deny them a route to illegal entry or because we legitimize their presence), then producers will either have pay more for the same amount of work or figure out a way to automate, economize, etc.

      It is certainly not a perfect solution, but the current state of limbo is simply not sustainable and is really a poor situation for those who are victims. Right now the government looks the other way, the producers/employers look the other way, and the immigrants get exploited. People who advocate for maintaining the status quo are really advocating for the victimization of a rather large group of people.

      I don't know who would be affected most, but I am confident that the market would reach a natural equilibrium.

    102. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Because this money is coming from other Americans, and it is silly verging on phenomenally stupid to suggest we need to import people (or let them overstay their visas) to open convenience stores funded by already-American dollars.

    103. Re:A good first step by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Force those rich people to hire good old fashioned Americans to clean their offices and houses.

      Won't that cost more?

      They'll increase the quality of life for Americans.

      How will making them pay more improve their quality of life?

      Anyway, I have it on very good authority that jobs like cleaning were never meant to pay a living wage.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    104. Re:A good first step by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      I am curious how you inferred my position on the Defense of Marriage Act from what I wrote.

      Let's walk through it then, here is your quote:

      Obama failing to enforce and vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act

      What can I logically get from this statement? Let's parse it:

      • 1) "Obama failing" - that means Obama failed at something. Obama did not succeed.
      • 2) " enforce and vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act" - Obama failed to enforce the act. Another way we could interpret that action, depending on our point of view is that perhaps Obama succeeded at not upholding the act?
      • 3) "enforce and vigorously" using the word vigorously as if Obama should have with great vigor upheld this act

      1 suggests a claim that it was a bad choice. 2 suggests that there is a belief he should have upheld it and the interpretation is that because he did not uphold it, he failed at "something" and 3. He should have done so vigorously, now why would someone add vigorously to this statement for any other reason to emphasize it or to project a sense of importance?

      There are only really two possibilities: 1) the statement doesn't reflect your view and you are re-iterating someone else's position or 2) the statement reflects your view and it impossible not to conclude that you have put forth a position on the issue. What am I missing?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    105. Re:A good first step by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

      Syrian Refugees don't get H-1Bs...

    106. Re:A good first step by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      If you carefully read the US Constitution it is the legislature's job to make the laws (with the President's signature or overriding a veto) and the executive's job to enforce the laws.

      Then go start a grass roots movement and do something about it. Do you really think whining incessantly about how the government doesn't work properly is going to do anything on slashdot? People have been whining about this for decades on slashdot believe it or not.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    107. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are delusional. A few years ago, I have hired a PhD in PA for under $50k, plus a cut of the eventual pie.

      Outside of the Cuckistan/Pelosiland, a PhD level biotech worker makes around 60k. Here have a look what a fresh PhD graduate makes at the NIH.

    108. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not care about a Syrian software engineer, because I am not Syrian. If you care, why don't you go to Syria and help them.

    109. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the feeling that you've never raised any investment much less $250k or more. If you have, please let me know from whom. I have a bridge they'll be interested in.

    110. Re:A good first step by sexconker · · Score: 1

      This scheme, and it was a scheme, had nothing to do with US jobs. It was a method of stealing cash and often funneling it out of the country.

      "Investors" find a mule with a shitty startup (or give them a phony one), bring them over, and pump a bit of cash and a lot of hot air into them.
      VCs are idiots and are TERRIFIED of not getting in on the ground floor of the next big thing (see Uber, Snapchat, etc.), so they come running to pump millions or billions into this hot new startup.

      Then the startup goes bust, the mule absconds to their home country, and the money? Only a fraction of it was actually spent, and the initial investors who sponsored the mule now have a huge chunk of it sitting in foreign accounts, where Uncle Sam can't tax it.

      The alternative is for the initial investors to simply funnel the VC sucker cash through the startup to their own companies. Your fancy new startup needs a super expensive, hip, office space matching your young, active, culture? I just happen to own a building you can rent. You guys need a crack team of interns and social media gurus? I happen to be an executive at a staffing agency. You can't attract the best, freshest millennials without an in-office Starbucks and a massage parlor. Let me hook you up with my brother-in-law.

    111. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From little things, big things grow! From little things, big things grow! ~~~~

    112. Re: A good first step by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      subway are known for having low franchise startup costs

      --
      Nullius in verba
    113. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      What can I logically get from this statement? Let's parse it:

      1) "Obama failing" - that means Obama failed at something. Obama did not succeed.

      As in "failed to execute the office to which he was elected"

      2) " enforce and vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act" - Obama failed to enforce the act. Another way we could interpret that action, depending on our point of view is that perhaps Obama succeeded at not upholding the act?

      Interpret it however you want. The fact is that the executive branch decided it didn't like a law and then didn't enforce it and when it was challenged in court decided not to defend it. If they could do that with one law, then they could do it with any law, say like laws on handling classified information or on bribery and corruption.

      3) "enforce and vigorously" using the word vigorously as if Obama should have with great vigor upheld this act

      That is exactly how he should have treated the law. All government officials should have respect for the law, both its letter and spirit. Bad laws are challenged in court (or fixed by the legislature), not ignored by executive branch bureaucrats. In the event of a court challenge, both sides must be vigorously represented, as in the the best ability of the litigants. I would hate to think that I could be accused of a crime, be appointed an attorney (as is my right) and that the attorney or one of his/her bosses could decide that they don't want to defend me because they don't like me. That is exactly what happened here, only it wasn't an individual on trial.

      1 suggests a claim that it was a bad choice. 2 suggests that there is a belief he should have upheld it and the interpretation is that because he did not uphold it, he failed at "something" and 3. He should have done so vigorously, now why would someone add vigorously to this statement for any other reason to emphasize it or to project a sense of importance?

      I use vigorous as it relates to the legal idea of effective counsel. That is the lawyers in a court case have a duty to actually try. It is sort of a fundamental aspect of the adversarial legal system. Since the law cannot have an opinion of itself, and since it was passed in a constitutional manner (i.e., both houses of Congress, signed by the president, etc.) it stands to reason that it should at least be accorded a proper defense when challenged. Alternatively, the president could have asked Congress to repeal the law before it reached the Supreme Court.

      There are only really two possibilities: 1) the statement doesn't reflect your view and you are re-iterating someone else's position or 2) the statement reflects your view and it impossible not to conclude that you have put forth a position on the issue. What am I missing?

      I did not put forth an opinion on the issue of the Defense of Marriage Act. The opinion I did put forth is that it is not within the executive's discretion to decide which laws to uphold and which to ignore, therefore the Obama administration's decision to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act was flat out wrong. If you go back and look at my initial comment, you will notice that I also gave an example from the Bush administration regarding the fourth amendment (arguably a more grievous offense, as that violated specific constitutionally protected rights on which courts had already ruled).

      Feel free to think that I am partisan, but I will say again (and my commenting history pretty well demonstrates) that I am not partisan. That is all.

    114. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Sure, and once you factor in all the other fees listed there, you're at $233,000, which doesn't leave much for anything else.

    115. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      Then go start a grass roots movement and do something about it. Do you really think whining incessantly about how the government doesn't work properly is going to do anything on slashdot? People have been whining about this for decades on slashdot believe it or not.

      I don't just whine about it. I am actively involved on multiple fronts. Whining on slashdot is just something I do in addition to being an active participant in our republic.

    116. Re: A good first step by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      So, you're hiring two or three cheap people, and expecting at least two more to work for a promise, all using maybe $250k of money from investors who were already in the US.

      Why is this worth bending or breaking immigration law?

      It's not. but there's a difference in what you pay people out of college vs 5 yrs later vs 10 yrs later. No need to break immigration law for what I said - that just SOP for start-ups - though as others pointed out that $250k may be used as the basis for loans (initial contribution and interest payments) to get more money and hire more people too. There's numerous ways it can be applied - my main point was that it won't really get used to pay people's salary.

      Oh, and the "promise of future gains" is core to many startups, especially tech startups. It's a matter of whether they can find people willing to take that risk. But with high risk comes high reward.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    117. Re: A good first step by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      They're not my figures and I'm sure they are optimistic given their source. But...

      • They do give cheaper options, eg. non-traditional locations (mountain tops, lake bottoms presumably)
      • They include the first 3 months operating costs, I don't know what they omitted

      It does look like a recipe for hard work, probably failure and low returns, at least until someone can own multiple franchise locations, but hey - it's a franchise opportunity for less than 250 large.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    118. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... this program in no way allows venture capitalists to take away opportunities for Americans. If each and every one of the 3,000 likely-eligible foreigners raised 50 million dollars each across those 30 months, that'd be just a third of venture capital investment. But hey, if you wanna go all Third-Reich nationalist and then blame someone else for stoking the fires of partisan politics, I guess I can't stop you.

      I guess it's lucky Mark Zuckerberg was American, otherwise all those venture capitalist dollars would have been lost in my water balloon vending business, right?

    119. Re:A good first step by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      No he's just influenced by his own corporation and everyone they do business with including the Russian government. How is that better?

      Also the kind of jobs you describe don't really increase the quality of life for the one employed. Those are shit jobs. We need to be investing in the skills required to do work that makes us competitive globally.

    120. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Assuming all of that is true, why should we allow someone to overstay a visa for 30 or 60 months because they raised enough from US investors to run a Subway restaurant for 3 months and change?

    121. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an interesting definition of "for the Americans."

      Perhaps you're thinking of how Trump relieved ~300,000 financial advisers of the burden of not self-dealing in serving the other 324M Americans.
      Or maybe how he'll reduce taxes for 3M wealthy Americans by killing the health insurance of 32M Americans.
      Or how he hopes to deport the parents of 4.5M Americans.
      Or how he'll cause 300,000 Americans to miss a day of work or school each year in attempting to maintain the last 51,000 coal industry jobs.

      good old fashioned Americans to clean their offices and houses

      You're not from around here, are you? I'm not even sure old-fashioned Americans are willing to clean offices and houses, certainly not for under $15/hour.

    122. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. I think you're missing the point.

      If you already know the robots will be taking over, why don't you invest in a company that designs/makes/services robots?

      Seems like a missed opportunity here.

      And then you can invest in guns to keep the broke dummies away from your money.

    123. Re: A good first step by Megol · · Score: 1

      I'll just point out that you are actually arguing against a scenario made up by yourself - a strawman.

      Most startups in the real world doesn't have high wages at the start (in some cases there are no wages involved at all), doing a lot of work for some years for essentially nothing isn't anything unusual. That's the real world.

    124. Re: A good first step by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I don't recall mentioning that - I think it's your paranoia showing. Overstaying a visa was already illegal, no change there.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    125. Re:A good first step by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Trump supports legalizing illegals....IF THEY ARE RUSSIANS or file falsified applications...see Melania.

    126. Re: A good first step by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      The Electoral College is in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment, and the 14th being the latter amendment, has precedence, thus, the EC is Unconstitutional.
      EQUAL rights people.

    127. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is that the executive branch decided it didn't like a law and then didn't enforce it and when it was challenged in court decided not to defend it.

      Incorrect

      The Obama administration did enforce the law. Even after they stopped defending the law in courts, the administration did say they still intend to enforce the law "unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."

      The opinion I did put forth is that it is not within the executive's discretion to decide which laws to uphold and which to ignore

      My opinion is your opinion doesn't apply to the events surrounding DOMA. As above, Obama choose not to defend the law in court, that is not the same as not enforcing the law.

      The Constitution says the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Executed, not defended.

      That the executive has a tradition of defend the law, but that is just that - a tradition. It is not a mandatory duty of the office.

      This is why all the lawyers on the Republican side have yet to nail Obama for failing to do his job, and not for the lack of trying.

      If you go back and look at my initial comment, you will notice that I also gave an example from the Bush administration regarding the fourth amendment

      Bush did something the Fourth Amendment said he isn't allowed to do.

      With DOMA, Obama "failed" to do something that the Constitution never said he had to do.

      Bringing up Bush just highlights that you are making a false equivalence, leading more credence to the idea that you are, in fact, partisan.

    128. Re:A good first step by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Agreed on most of your reply except that the market could reach natural equilibrium that way... The thing is that other things else that directly involve/entangle with the market would be affected and may create a bigger mess around them. Thus in practical, I doubt that the equilibrium would occur in this generation or ever because it is a very long process.

      Taking your McDonald example, your tentative conclusion -- " then producers will either have pay more for the same amount of work or figure out a way to automate, economize, etc." -- springs a new problem that does not solve the market wage price. If the producers choose to automate, then the wage could remain the same but a lot less labor jobs would be offered. From what I've seen so far, unemployed people from day labor do not attempt to improve the situation but rather call out for help from government. That meant the solution of producers causes a problem on other areas.

      Just my two cents...

    129. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look again at the words Trump uses.

      he's flat out stating that Mexicans who come to America are rapists, murderers, and drug pushers.

      I urge you to take your own advice.

    130. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument against H1Bs is that companies like Infosys and Tata abuse them to bring in tons of unskilled workers ....

      Stop right there. "Unskilled"?

      Didn't say it was a good argument.

    131. Re: A good first step by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      If the person getting a visa is getting $250k in VC, the startup will probably be structured as a corporation so that the investors can record their ownership.

      You seem to be forgetting the premises and purposes of this visa program. In context, $250k does not seem like a sufficiently high threshold for how much the founder and his/her idea is perceived to be worth.

      No, the visa is for the foreign founder, not for other employees in the company (if it is hiring). The founder can't apply for a green card as well. It is a non-immigration visa; thus, no immigrant.

      Also, this is not something for those who think and want to start a big business. It is more like for those who want to try out their businesses. If the business seems to work, then the founder may try to raise more fund later on. If one thinks big at the beginning and tries to accomplish the idea right away (can be seen from some TV shows for investors), then $250k is not enough to run a company, and the result may likely be a failure.

    132. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about protecting jobs. It's about keeping out foreigners.

      You are making a wild ass claim here. Your claim is: because it keeps out foreigners, it can't be about protecting American interests, specifically jobs. That is a HUUUUUUGE logical fallacy.

      The only logical fallacy is the false dichotomy you are projecting. There are two, separate sentences, and neither implies that its truth is dependent on the other.

      Let me explain something to you, by adopting a liberal stance here, you are essentially supporting sweat shop labor.

      Another fallacy on your part. One can support immigration and also support improving labor conditions for immigrants and natives alike. This is only seems impossible to people who say things like "it's simple economics", because what they should be saying is "I am incapable of understanding complex economics".

    133. Re:A good first step by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If you carefully read the US Constitution it is the legislature's job to make the laws (with the President's signature or overriding a veto) and the executive's job to enforce the laws.

      If you carefully read the US Constitution, you'll find out about this third branch of government called the Judicial Branch. A member of that branch had ruled DOMA violated the Constitution and thus barred the Executive branch from enforcing DOMA.

      Now, you could argue that Obama should have ignored the Judicial Branch's decision, but that kinda flies in the face of your claims about the Constitution being sacrosanct.

      You could also argue that the DoJ under Obama should have fought to keep DOMA all the way to the Supreme Court. But there's no requirement in the Constitution that the Executive branch must exhaust all appeals before stopping the enforcement of an unconstitutional law. Especially one that was extremely likely to go down 5-4 - Kennedy was not a fan of DOMA.

    134. Re:A good first step by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      He assumes that because, like many economic illiterates ... Real economies don't work that way.

      You're quite assured about a profession that its own members admit has failed us (citation below). "Real economists" have assured us that free trade is our friend, that increased productivity is how we get more prosperity, and many other things that sound convincing but have not delivered. And regardless of how far our standard of living drops they preach the same. Free trade has lowered the standards of living by being a race to the bottom, as anyone with a good dose of sense can see. Much the same way that supply and demand would dictate that importing masses of workers by definition devalues the existing workers. Lastly although increased productivity is good in theory if the fruits of that aren't shared then to those left out it's the same as no gains in productivity. But what do I know, I still think all lives matter so I'm just a hopeless deplorable.

      Citations:

      https://www.theguardian.com/co...

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/e...

    135. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      If you carefully read the US Constitution, you'll find out about this third branch of government called the Judicial Branch. A member of that branch had ruled DOMA violated the Constitution and thus barred the Executive branch from enforcing DOMA.

      Not quite. From the summary of the case that ended up before the Supreme Court:

      On November 9, 2010, Windsor sued the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for "differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples without justification."[5] On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 in Windsor. On April 18, 2011, Paul Clement, representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), intervened to defend the law. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment[6] and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest.

      So, the executive made their decision before the judiciary had ruled. I grant you that once the first ruling was made the right thing to do was to respect the ruling. At that point they could have decided whether to appeal or not, as that would have been the president's prerogative. But that's not what happened at all.

      Now, you could argue that Obama should have ignored the Judicial Branch's decision, but that kinda flies in the face of your claims about the Constitution being sacrosanct.

      I made no such argument. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Once the court ruled, then the matter was decided. The right to appeal is not a requirement to appeal.

      You could also argue that the DoJ under Obama should have fought to keep DOMA all the way to the Supreme Court. But there's no requirement in the Constitution that the Executive branch must exhaust all appeals before stopping the enforcement of an unconstitutional law. Especially one that was extremely likely to go down 5-4 - Kennedy was not a fan of DOMA.

      See what I said above.

    136. Re:A good first step by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      It is certainly a complex problem because of all the facets. I think that we can either rip the bandaid off now and endure some serious short term pain. Or we peel it off very slowly and endure a much lower level of pain over a longer period of time. But I don't think keeping things as they are is sustainable and there is no real way to fix the problem without causing some level of pain in the process. The reason it is such a divisive issue is because somebody has to make the decisions and nobody wants to be the bad guy.

    137. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I've never suggested this visa was for anyone except the foreign founder. And while the founder can't apply for a green card while this waiver is in effect, there are a lot of other visas in this country, and the founder can apply for a green card the second after this waiver expires.

    138. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      The Fine Summary explains that this program would waive enforcement of visa over-stays for 30 months, extendable to 60 months, so no, it is not my "paranoia". Your reading non-comprehension combines poorly with how quickly you use gratuitous personal insults.

    139. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I thought this program was advocated on the basis that it would help provide good jobs to Americans. As long as you are up-front and honest about your expectation that recipients of this visa can only be expected to provide a few short-term jobs at sub-"living wage" salaries, we can proceed to discuss the merits.

    140. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the stupid is strong with this one. Read Section 2, it specifically says the citizens will vote in choice of electors. How did you become such an idiot anyways?

    141. Re: A good first step by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      It's a visa in all but name. The summary even calls it a "startup-visa". You make it sound as if these immigrants are doing something wrong when all they are doing is following the rules.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    142. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      name one thing obama was a champion for, and that his implemented, that trump has said "that's a good idea, we're going to keep that".

      i'm waiting..

      still waiting... ......thats what i thought.

      fuck off, 'pede.

    143. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you look at it like most immigrants I know: Fuck you, I got mine. You guys wanted in but then you want to knock the ladder off the wall so no one else can follow. I know plenty of your type.

    144. Re:A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An open border would be disastrous for the US.

    145. Re: A good first step by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Since when is a startup a big multinational.

    146. Re:A good first step by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      You sound like a socialist. Maybe you should vote for a lefty.

    147. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll read your opinion on the matter when you're on the supreme court. Until then you can suck a dick.

    148. Re: A good first step by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I love how people say 'just start a company ' like it's the easiest thing in the world, and has no barriers to entry.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    149. Re:A good first step by NaCh0 · · Score: 1

      That is misleading because illegal border crossings are down 73% so there is less low hanging fruit to deport. Interior enforcement has to increase to maintain the deportation numbers.

    150. Re: A good first step by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      C'mon, admit it, the Demopublican party hates commoners even more than the Republicrat party hates us.

    151. Re: A good first step by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      The typical American political "lefty" is at best a running dog reformist, more often a bootlicker of capital who demands only the acceptance his social degeneracy as the price for selling out his countrymen.

      The "lefty" is not any sort of socialist, and sure as flying fuck not a communist.

    152. Re: A good first step by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, richboy broham.

      Americans very much do want those jobs. Get out of your little elitist bubble and ask some real working class people. They're easy to find, as they're the overwhelming majority of the population. But you will have to venture outside San Franshitsco and New Jack City.

    153. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      It's not much like a visa, because a visa grants provisional permission to enter the US (subject to review by a CBP inspector at the actual time of entry), with a particular category of immigration status once the alien enters the US. This program doesn't grant permission to enter or legal status; it is just a promise of "prosecutorial discretion" not to prosecute or deport the person who overstayed their authorized time in the US. Saying these people "followed all the rules" is like saying Jeronimo Yanez followed all the rules.

    154. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      It's a way for people who are in the US illegally to get a several-year stay on being deported or otherwise prosecuted for violating US immigration law. By its own terms, it doesn't apply to immigrants or provide a pathway to immigrant status.

    155. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, nuking this program is a sign that we have too many regulations (especially introduced since 1993) and too many special exemptions from generally applicable laws, and this program would not be worth the distortion it caused.

      It would be one thing if the threshold for this program was many millions of dollars. It's crazy for the threshold to be only $250k.

    156. Re: A good first step by Entrope · · Score: 1

      And you are delusional if you think the cost to employ someone only consists of their salary.

      The "employer" portion of payroll taxes, workman's comp, unemployment insurance, any benefits (or penalties for not providing qualifying health insurance), office space, equipment, materials, and more add a lot of overhead costs to employing people.

    157. Re: A good first step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about a tech startup here.
      The costs of "office space, equipment, materials," etc. are commensurate with running a hairdresser shop in the boonies.
      Employer taxes, insurance, etc. are about 25k max on a 50k salary (and much less, depending on how you set it up).
      There are many problems with the Obama startup visa, but the capital amount ain't one of them!

    158. Re:A good first step by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the lefties generally dislike Christians at best and want to ban them from government, like Bernie Sanders literally said, at worst. Oddly those same lefties want to protect the Muslims who oppress women like nobody else and still have slaves. Very odd those lefties since they allegedly dislike both cruelty to women and slavery.

  2. This is bullshit lads! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I was planning on moving to Philadelphia to startup a democracy.

  3. What about the property EB-5 visa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What about the property investor visa? The one where you "invest" in property to the tune of $500k and in exchange get a visa?

    You know, the one Jared's company was promoting to Chinese people as a way to get a USA green card?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-sister-woos-china-golden-visa-investors-eb-5-green-cards/

    I know more details of these schemes now: I thought it was a straight con against stupid Chinese marks, but its cleverer than that. I thought they invested $500k, and were actually buying something worth far less.

    So Jared's company was claiming the Chinese would own $150 million of a billion dollar project, =15%. The price is obviously inflated, that will be a 300 million project at best of which Jared's company would have equity of a small fraction of that, e.g. $30 million with the bank holding the rest as asset against its loans. So he's actually selling a token asset.

    The Chinese marks are duped of millions, which would be Jared profit.

    I've since been told that these Chinese mark's are told they can get a guaranteed return, typically its 50%. So they are buying a discount way to get a visa. Since the mark is brought into the con, they don't complain, because they'd lose the visa.

    1. Re:What about the property EB-5 visa? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Obviously inflated? This idiocy again?

      You think investors, their attorneys, their accountants, wouldn't be able to tell if the property is "obviously inflated?"

      You pretend you're insightful but don't realize you just insulted 1000s of Chinese investors (who are not necessarily stupid), their attorneys and their accountants.

      Hmmm. If I was a prog this would the time I would yell: RACIST

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:What about the property EB-5 visa? by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought of immediately as well.

      But well, the obvious answer is -- this one's only for rich people, and it helps to make his family rich.

      The other one's for smart people, and they're probably 'elitist', and realize the emperor has no clothes. (but not like they'd be allowed to vote, as this has no direct path to that ... whereas I'm pretty sure the EB-5 does)

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    3. Re:What about the property EB-5 visa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Chinese marks are duped of millions, which would be Jared profit.

      They're not getting duped. They fully expect to lose that money. They're getting exactly what they paid for: a green card in exchange for $500,000.

      If you lived in China, had a net worth over around $10M, and wanted to have a hedge against Chinese political instability, $500K is a fucking bargain. You purchase your green card, then you move a portion of your assets to the US - say, by buying a second luxury apartment at fair market value, and just leaving it sit empty - and if China's economy crashes, you get on the next plane out of dodge and live in your cushy apartment.

      This is an international phenomenon amongst UHNWI (ultrahigh net worth individuals) - American VCs including Peter Thiel are doing it too, and their destination of choice appears to be New Zealand in the event of political instability within the United States.

      None of these investors - Chinese buying visas from the President's son - nor Thiel buying NZ citizenship via lobbying for it - gives a damn about whether their offshore investments provide a financial return. They're rational market hedges against the risk of domestic instability: spend $1-2M on insurance to guarantee that you'll live as well offshore post-crash on your remaining post-crash $3-5M wealth as you did at home on your original pre-crash $10M. (And if you start with $100M, the math is even easier: It's the same $1-2M on insurance, and you're left with $30-50M from your precrash $100M.)

    4. Re:What about the property EB-5 visa? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      That is $500,000 minimum brought in from overseas, along with the formation of a US corporation/investment vehicle meaning more spent (outside the $500K) to set up and operate. President Obama's plan allowed that same Chinese "investor" to solicit $250,000 in US funding and do the same basic thing. Essentially "buying" a green card for $250,000 that was already inside the US, no outside investment needed.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  4. Wondering what may replace this. by w3woody · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The International Entrepreneur Rule ... doesn't offer a visa but rather a type of "parole" ...

    The rule grants a stay in the US of 30 months, which can be extended for an additional 30 months. Founders can't apply for a green card during that time.

    If I were President I'd scrap this rule too--because it's just too confusing. But then, everything having to do with visiting and obtaining permission to work within the United States, as well as with immigrating to the United States, is just terribly confusing. And I say this as a U.S. citizen.

    Personally I would rather we simplify all these regulations regarding immigration--and make it easier for people who qualify to immigrate here without all this weird mumbo-jumbo "parole, no green card, 30 months, can't visit overseas for longer than so many days, do not pass go, must recite ancient Aramaic to come back" nonsense. I swear; just talking to my friends who immigrated here from overseas about what they had to do to become U.S. citizens gives me a massive headache.

    1. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 - the whole process is designed to ensure that overseas labor stays indentured.

    2. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's just the teaser into the mutually contradictory legislation that immigrants have to look forward to. By design, all US citizens are in violation of at least one federal law, meaning the legal system can always find something to charge someone with if they have enough motive to do so.

      The nonsensical parts of the immigration law are just filters to limit immigration to people who are willing to pay. Accepted currencies are US dollars, commodities, skilled labor, sociopolitical influence, and self-esteem.

    3. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans have been saying for years that they want to pass comprehensive immigration reform but they can't because Democrats insist on things they won't agree to, e.g. amnesty.

      Now they control the government, and still no reform in sight.

    4. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by swb · · Score: 2

      It's like that because nobody wants to advocate for simple exclusions. And for every reasonable exclusion you can think of, there's a constituency who wants exceptions for their specific cases -- countries of origins, family ties, sponsors, assets, various flavors of civil and military conflict, etc.

      Simplifying is a great idea, but you have to be willing to decide who you won't let in without creating any exceptions.

    5. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by w3woody · · Score: 1

      Fact of life: any time you change regulations there are always losers. When you talk about regulations at the federal level, sadly, you need to approach the problem by recognizing you're trying to maximize overall "good", recognizing the fact that some folks will always fall between the cracks.

      Even creating exceptions for every fiddly little fringe case doesn't solve the problem, since the folks who fall between the cracks are those of average intelligence who can't navigate the list of exceptions.

    6. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I personally believe there is nothing wrong with (most) of these. Why should "we" invite someone into our country if they can't make us better in some way. Especially when we have tons of programs that people like me have contributed significant money to with the idea that if I fall on hard times or have a disabled child they may get help. I never paid into these systems to provide help to people who never paid in or had a family member to pay in.

      In my opinion you should start out contributing to the USA and if you fall on hard times - you get help. Not the opposite where we invite bums in to receive welfare with the hopes that some day they might contribute.

      Skills are good, capital is good, other "benefits" are good. Influence and political capital may or may not be good.

      The point is - open your house to a bunch of bums and you get a slum. Open your house to a bunch of people with money, skills, and other talents and things will flourish.

    7. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by swb · · Score: 1

      The problem with immigration is there is no Pareto optimal state.

    8. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      visiting OR obtaining permission to work. You don't need to be doing work for something to be difficult.

      I find it easier to go to China to visit. At least you know when your visa is rejected, but what is the purpose of an ESTA form? An Electronic System for Travel Authorisation that allows you to waive a visa but at the same time doesn't guarantee that you won't randomly be rejected and doesn't tell you if you're okay to travel? Like WTF! It's the only developed country I've ever been uncertain about.

    9. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no Pareto point because it is an ill defined problem. What constitutes optimal? This is true of a lot of problems including healthcare.

    10. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.

      Just wow.

      How stupid and paranoid do you have to be to think that programs that US citizens barely qualify for after years of bureaucratic finagling and fighting are just offered up to anybody who isn't a citizen?

      You'd have to be as stupid as an American to think that!

    11. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with immigration is there is no Pareto optimal state.

      What are you talking about? Of course there is.

      The US wants *NO* immigration. Unless it's slaves.

    12. Re:Wondering what may replace this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fact of life: any time you change regulations there are always losers. When you talk about regulations at the federal level, sadly, you need to approach the problem by recognizing you're trying to maximize overall "good", recognizing the fact that some folks will always fall between the cracks.

      Even creating exceptions for every fiddly little fringe case doesn't solve the problem, since the folks who fall between the cracks are those of average intelligence who can't navigate the list of exceptions.

      So to quote Nancy Pelosi: "Everybody gets a haircut".....

  5. No justification that is at all reasonable by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is ridiculous. Even if you have a problem with cheap H-1B visas replacing American workers, this isn't that. This is welcoming in business people with new ideas which will create new jobs and new opportunities. Nor is there any sort of safety issue whatsoever. This is a combination of xenophobia (immigrants are apparently scary), along with Trump's generally zero-sum understanding of how things work (which contributes to a lot of what he does), and frustration that his earlier immigration bans failed in the courts (so doing this feels like he's blocking at least some immigrants, never mind that they are exactly the sort of immigrants he claimed he wanted earlier).

    1. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it is 30 (+30) month visas for people with $250,000, nothing else.
      If you want a two tiered immigration system that only caters to the rich, win an election. I think the majority of the country is fed up with two sets of rules depending on how much money you have or how high up your contacts in the government are.

    2. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Informative

      More importantly, this isn't the EB-5 investor visa that Jared Kushner's sister was busy hawking in China. That's the one which allows someone to essentially buy a visa for $500,000. Theoretically that was money to invest in a business, but in practice they can simply 'invest' in, let's say, someone's real estate development (such as the Kushner family's), which amounts mostly just to giving cash to whoever runs that development.

      Instead, this startup visa (would have) required someone to have an idea for a business that's good enough to attract investors. Maybe some of them fail, but maybe some of them are the next (insert cool/successful tech startup), and we'd rather they be in the US than in the other countries trying to attract them.

      Of course, the startup visa was drawn from the number of visas otherwise available for EB-5 buyers. Gee, I wonder why Trump and Kushner would want to cut startup visas, but keep the EB-5 around.

    3. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      "No, it is 30 (+30) month visas for people with $250,000, nothing else." This is completely wrong. The $250,000 has to come from US investors, not the person in question.

    4. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This makes sense for people who want to keep America as white as possible, regardless of he economic and cultural opportunities missed. They would rather see America be a white dominated county that fails than a multiethnic country that succeeds.

      Of course their stated preference is for a white country that succeeds, but they are only kidding themselves that this is a reasonable hope. The basis for this hope is persecution fantasies about how the only reason they are losing is that everyone else is cheating.

    5. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by swb · · Score: 2

      It's all in the enforcement and the loopholes. How many "investors" are required? Are they required to be actual American firms or citizens? How many employees is your "startup" required to actually have?

      What's to prevent a H-1B farmer from simply creating sham startups and importing "entrepreneurs"?

      Sure, if the enforcement is rigorous and there is some kind of auditing to insure that these are bonafide startups, entrepreneurs and investors then on the surface it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. If it's just filing paperwork listing a bunch of shell companies that can't easily be unwound, then its ripe for exploitation.

    6. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we know how well the government enforces rules like that, see H1-B.

      You have your talking point to spin on for keeping your two tiered system only for the rich, I have my points for explaining why you are being dishonest. Which do you think is more believable?

      Why do we literally have people arguing for rich people to have different rules here? Is it now completely acceptable to have laws written differently depending on how much money you have now?

    7. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America as white as possible

      Uggg I am so tired of this argument. It has more to do with power and money (basically greed) than any human demographics. I am sure that if blacks / females were the majority of rich / powerful people in the west they would be doing the same thing or even "gasp" worse. If this was not the case then why do you see the same behaviour at all levels in the financial class regardless of demographics.

    8. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not making any sense friend.

    9. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about being able to tell his constituents that he stuck it to some foreigners.

    10. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem confused. There is a program that grants visas to people who invest a certain large amount of money in the U.S. This is what Kushner's sister was pimping in China earlier this year.

      TFA describes a different program where the Money has to be fronted by U.S. investors. Assuming only wealthy individuals provide this money (vs. aggregated funding sources), you could (and you surely will) complain that this allows rich Americans to decide who gets fast-tracked through the immigration process.

      Even then you'd have to explain why rich Americans would want to game this system. I'm sure you'll realize that George Soros is involved in some nefarious way.

    11. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Enforcement is a completely different claim. Are you at all able to acknowledge that your initial claim about where the money would come from is wrong? You also appear to be completely missing the point that this system was set up to encourage more startups with more jobs. That helps the people who aren't rich.

      "You have your talking point to spin on for keeping your two tiered system only for the rich, I have my points for explaining why you are being dishonest. "

      It is unfortunate that you presume that anyone who disagrees with you must have nefarious goals and be dishonest. It may help to realize that reasonable people can disagree.

    12. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see poor minorities demanding police harrasment of poor whites, and neither do you.

      I don't see middle class minorities fleeing neighborhoods when middle class white people move in, and neither do you.

      I'll grant that wealthy people tend to be elitist regardless of race. But that does not mean that racism is nothing more than a mischaracterization of financial elitism.

    13. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by multi+io · · Score: 1

      No, it is 30 (+30) month visas for people with $250,000, nothing else. If you want a two tiered immigration system that only caters to the rich, win an election. I think the majority of the country is fed up with two sets of rules depending on how much money you have or how high up your contacts in the government are.

      Strange. Isn't catering to the rich all the Republicans do these days? That's what "trickle down" is all about, right?

    14. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by marquisdepolis · · Score: 2

      Because sham startups won't get professional investors - definitely not well-known ones with some credibility.

    15. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by mOzone · · Score: 1

      rich folks just pay to get this visa then get money back .. what khan was doing in Saudi before he went on my poor son tour with Hillary

      wire 250-500k to usa .. lawyers and such post for visa .. visa holder can buy land invest etc etc 2-3 years later get money back after small 20% lawyer fee

    16. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by swb · · Score: 1

      So a requirement is a known professional investor or investment company, or this is just your assumption on how they would spot shams?

      The problem is that investments in many things are often done a custom partnership basis, usually to insulate shareholder assets from losses.

      So "Sanjay's Startup" will end up being invested in by "Bay Area Startup Fund XVII" and "Pacific Growth Opportunities Delta 5" and other totally indecipherable names whether legitimate or fraudulent.

    17. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      It wasn't an assumption. From the original rule doc - "Such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State or local government entities. "

      https://www.federalregister.go...

    18. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by swb · · Score: 1

      So one of two things is possible:

      The people who issue the visa put a ton of effort into verifying the bonafides of the investors, indicating the process is so bureaucratic and slow moving that it really is a token system that doesn't really produce meaningful economic activity. In this case, it should be scrapped simply to save the bureaucratic overhead in running the program.

      Or, the written requirements are onerous but there's little in-depth review of applications due to the complexity of unwinding corporate structures to verify the investors and their track records. The program is thus easily exploitable because it's too easy to submit indecipherable investment sources and so it should be scrapped.

    19. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Those aren't the only two choices. The third option is: You get an application for Startup A where Investor A has agreed to give funding. You look at Investor A and see they've funded 20 companies in the past, with all of them being sham startups, and deny the visa. Startup B who got an offer from Investor B applies for the visa. You see Investor B has also funded 20 companies in the past, of which 15 have gone on to get follow-on funding, with 2 that have already been acquired. It's not that difficult to sort this out. LP (Limited Partners who give money to funds) check these things out re GP (General Partners who actually run the fund) all the time, and on an ongoing basis.

      It's highly questionable that the bureaucratic overhead for this would be higher in any way compared to any other type of visa. Question is why you would take the chance of the next great immigrant created startup not being in the US. Wouldn't you want to take the chance of the next Google, Amazon, SpaceX, Tesla, eBay or Apple being in the US?

    20. Re:No justification that is at all reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is ridiculous. Even if you have a problem with cheap H-1B visas replacing American workers, this isn't that. This is welcoming in business people with new ideas which will create new jobs and new opportunities. Nor is there any sort of safety issue whatsoever. This is a combination of xenophobia (immigrants are apparently scary), along with Trump's generally zero-sum understanding of how things work (which contributes to a lot of what he does), and frustration that his earlier immigration bans failed in the courts (so doing this feels like he's blocking at least some immigrants, never mind that they are exactly the sort of immigrants he claimed he wanted earlier).

      It seems that Trump has a fixation for Obama. Whatever Obama has done, no matter that it might benefit the US, he wants to pull it down. He must really hate Obama which means that he is probably a bit insane.

  6. Re:Appalled by the bigotry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry for you. However, you are working under the same auspices that have been used to import a large number of less-diligent people simply because they were cheaper than native talent. Unfortunately, no one can tell that you are more competent than that by simply looking, so the natural response from strangers is going to assume the stereotype.

    At least for the most part people's resentment towards you as a foreign "invader" is likely to be non-violent. Other immigrants have not fared as well.

  7. trump's platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    if($obama){
    break;
    }

  8. This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Trump wants to undo EVERYTHING Obama ever did, to deny the fact a black man was at the head of "his" country.

  9. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's very little race to it. Any time foreign people come in and displace native workers, it breeds resentment, and it doesn't matter whether you're of the Indian "race", the Italian "race" or the Irish "race".

  10. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by w3woody · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Setting aside your complaints of racism, one reason why some of us would like to eliminate H-1B and replace it with something else is because the rules behind H-1B creates some onerous requirements that resemble indentured servitude.

    When you receive an H-1B visa, you must be sponsored by a company, and that creates a situation where if you lose your job, you may also lose your apartment, your friends, and everything you own that you can't carry on the airplane as you are shipped back "home." This puts H-1B holders at a significant disadvantage during salary negotiations, since their status (including the path towards citizenship or green card status) can effectively be held hostage by the sponsoring corporation.

    Further, there is a cap on how long someone on an H-1B can stay in the United States. After that period, it's not uncommon for people (usually computer programmers and systems analysts) to return back to the country where they originally came from--but retain their jobs via telecommuting, but at a lower salary (on the theory the cost of living is cheaper). This contributes to off-shoring of jobs.

    Personally I would rather see this system replaced with one which greatly simplifies the process of gaining a green card (permanent residency). This would prevent many of the abuses of the H-1B program, as a permanent resident doesn't have to rely on a corporate sponsor to stay. Just as I'd like to see the path to citizenship greatly simplified as well.

  11. Re:Appalled by the bigotry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    assume that, because I'm from India, that my computer science degree is inferior and my skills are deficient.

    they are, that's why your working long hours for hardly any money

  12. Re:Appalled by the bigotry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not bigotry, it's that you displaced someone here who could be employed, or who was let go to cut costs.

    And don't think this is somehow unique - every single country has work rules to prevent this, yet corporations somehow get around it.

    At some point, don't you have to ask yourself why you're working for less wages?

  13. Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, many of us who trained H1-b visa holders had to train them (our replacements) and answer questions like this:

    "What does the asterisk by a variable mean?"

    and it was being asked by someone who we were all told was hired because there "were not enough qualified Americans."

    By the way, I haven't worked since and I've been told that I'm unemployable now. And it sucks because I went back to school to get more training and it's proving to have been worthless - but I still got to pay back the student loans somehow. It'll probably come out of my Social Security.

    So, yes sir! There is quite a bit of resentment.

    1. Re:Yeah. by snookiex · · Score: 1

      "What does the asterisk by a variable mean?"

      Hey, not everyone knows what a footnote is! But seriously, I think you should focus your resentment on your ex-employer. The ones that came up with the idea of replacing local manpower with cheaper peers overseas are the companies. If you offer them a good salary (for their standards) why would they refuse it?

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    2. Re: Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Har har. I laugh at your misery, nerd. I shit on your pointless resentment and wipe my ass with your useless degree. Hey, loser, weren't you supposed to be "my boss" by now? Har har. Wasn't I supposed to peak in high school and work at the gas station? How comes then that I'm the one with the money, the big house and the pretty wife while you're late on your one-room flat rent, eating ramen and you couldn't get laid on a whorehouse with a pocketful of fifty dollar bills? Har har.

  14. Divide and conquer! by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Yep.

  15. What about the Alfabank one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh and the Alfabank one?

    Where Alfabank servers looked up 80%+ (2,700 queries) of Trumps email server. Trump representative said it was a bulk email from Trump being spam checked. Which sounded plausible.

    So what deal was being bulk mailed to Alfabank? We never did find out, but I'm assuming it was a property deal? Maybe EB5 visa related too?

    I can see Trump corp has 2 Cyprus bank accounts, and hired the head of (Russian half owned) Cyprus bank, Wilbur Ross. Cyprus is stuffed full of Russian money, so that is where I'd expect to see a money flow.

    I can also see from his latest disclosure (July 16th he released another non-disclosure disclosure) that he re-mortgaged property, and sold his stocks. Which he presented as "refinancing at a lower rate" and "divesting stocks to avoid conflicts". But if he had money, he'd repay his loans, not re-borrow more capital that his previous amount.

    So he needed to borrow money, even after selling his stocks. Why?

    So what's needed at this point are his tax returns, but we should also see the bulk email campaign that the Alfabank queries referred to.

    I know the RNC wants to ignore the issues, and give him a 20% discount on the rules of being President. But they need to realize if they let him do this, he'll insist on an 80% discount. He'll piss all over their Congress made laws. It's what he is, he buys stuff, demands 20% or 30% discount, and if you're stupid enough to take it, he demands a 70% or 80% discount. You agree a discount, it's just about how massive a discount. It's the same with laws, with planning regs, with contractors, suppliers, he does it because you let him.

  16. It's about undoing everything Obama ever did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculous

    Yes, it is, but so is just about everything else our Bigot in Chief is doing. This isn't about immigration, and I don't think it has a lot to do with his travel ban either. It's about undoing everything president Blackenstein ever did, and wiping out his legacy completely. It's driven by pure, unadulterated racism, plain and simple.

    Make sure our first black president has nothing, and I mean nothing, that historians can point to where he improved America.

    What the dipshit doesn't understand is that historians will quite rightly point out that President Obama did a great deal to help America, which then Putin's Cockholster undid out of pure spite and racism. As to whether it is key to the decline of America, or merely a footnote, remains to be seen, but the motives are very clear and utterly base.

    1. Re:It's about undoing everything Obama ever did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paid shill. get off slashdot, you've already ruined sites like reddit. Get the f*ck away from our site!!!

    2. Re:It's about undoing everything Obama ever did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure our first black president has nothing, and I mean nothing, that historians can point to where he improved America.

      If only he could see how it's going to end: Trump will ultimately remembered as America's first black president.

      And the history books will say he came right after that guy of more-recent African descent, but whose heart wasn't totally evil so it's not proper to call him "black."

    3. Re:It's about undoing everything Obama ever did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but whose heart wasn't totally evil so it's not proper to call him "black."

      Since when evil == black?

  17. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They stink up my lunchroom!

  18. Re:Appalled by the bigotry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best of luck to yo, in your country.

  19. It's just a loophole to smuggle in temp workers. by Shompol · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This scheme in fact involves creating US jobs

    No, this is just another avenue to smuggle foreigners into the country. The plan that this will be used for creating jobs is really far fetched. Anyone who can show $250K (do they even need to show it?) is allowed to to invite anyone they please for 5 years. The cover that the money will be used to start a business is really hard to prove or verify. Also, who is going to invest into a business of a foreign tourist with a temp visa?

  20. Good by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    "You can stay, but we get to shove ourselves up your ass to make sure you meet the requirements, also you're barred from seeking normal residency."

    This honestly sounds like a scam to get entrepreneurs stuck in a legal negative space so we can strip them of the business they built in the process of kicking them back out. The foreigners would have to be on crack to take this deal.

    1. Re:Good by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      And they won't take the deal. Instead they'll take their money and ideas and build businesses in other more progressive countries that embrace them. I'm not sure how this policy benefits the US, but I'm sure Business Genius Trump has it all figured out because he's so smart and savvy.

  21. Re: It's just a loophole to smuggle in temp worker by Entrope · · Score: 1

    One might put money into a business started by someone on a short-term visa if they expect to take over the business after the visa expires.

  22. Underrated by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    I thought this was witty for about thirty seconds, but now it feels like more of a sad commentary on the American people's lack of autonomy.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  23. A new low by campuscodi · · Score: 0

    I thought Trump was dumb, but never imagined the guy actually doesn't understand that the US' tech sector's supremacy was built on foreigners and not 'muricans.

    1. Re:A new low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      startup's are not only in tech dipshit

  24. Will help american entreprenuers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a good plan. The program should be terminated. Terminating this program will help all Americans, including minorities such as African Americans, found their own businesses. I will explain, it does so because we need to reserve the limited amount of investment capital for the benefit of American entreprenuers.

    The reason that this is so is that by foreigners consuming the available investor money, it becomes unavailable for utilization by American citizens. Instead, what we need is to encourage more americans to take an interest in technology and to develop their own technologies, and to encourage this we need to ensure that they know that investor money is available to them instead of being consumed by foreign aliens, while they develop their skills utilizing various educational programs we can create. This can involve more elective courses in schools for electonics and programming, more apprenticeship programs to make it easier for people to go straight from high school into IT without expensive college detours, an funding IT clubs for American citizens which are curated by IT enthusiasts to help promote learning, self study and taking an interest in IT as well as allow like minded people to form contacts and user groups formed around programming, electronics and so forth. Trump needs in conjunction to this, to implement other aspects of the plans he discussed which includes using money to help our own American citizens from American parents and families for instance in our inner cities, often minority populations, instead of using the money on foreign aliens. The US only has so much money available and we need to make sure this money goes to our own people rather than foreign aliens (often through anchor babies who really should not be entitled to US citizenship). Most countries in the world only give citizenship to children of their own citizens not anyone who just happens to go into labor on a certain side of the border. If you drive through an inner city in the USA you see devastation. These are people, families, children who have lived in the USA for generations and the USA is passing them over and instead drenches foreign aliens with benefits who come into the USA and drop an anchor baby. This is limited money that is therefore not utilized to help our own multigenerational American families. This means that less resources are available to help our own impoverished, often minority, communities. This is why minorities more than anyone should be for a strong border and no more immigration because it results in less money being available to provide education and training services to help our own communities and our own American families be able to achieve their dreams. Look at an inner city in the USA and you see aimless youth walking around succumbing to the influence of drug lords, often minorities. It really is very sad. And we ignore them and instead we drench foreign aliens who come in and exploit our welfare and benefits system by dropping an anchor baby.

    The whole point of cancelling foreign investor Visas and implementing programs to cultivate American entrepreneurship, to encourage Americans by making sure investment money is available for Americans and easier to get for Americans, foreign investor competition would make it harder to get for Americans and would discourage Americans. It is to encourage home grown technology and industries and ensure that investor resources and educational resources are being utilizes to help American citizens found their own businesses so that we have a healthy American owned entrepreneurial economy rather than one which is owned by foreign aliens. By promoting the development and actualization of talent and entrepreneurship among the American population, we reduce poverty and dependence on welfare and raise the standard of living for our own people. Americans who have grown up in America from American parents will also regain a sense of patriotism and once again feel their country provides them with opportunities and protects and fosters the intere

    1. Re:Will help american entreprenuers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S. I am an African American who wrote the above, so I have good reasons to oppose foreign aliens coming in and stealing our jobs and our opportunities, its obvious that any american, regardless of their race, but especially African Americans should oppose all immigration adn should oppose reducing the available investment capital for americans by allowing foreign aliens to consume it. This is why African Americans who vote for the DNC in particular are shooting themselves in the foot. The vast amounts of money spent on foreign aliens and the anchor babies means less money available to rehabilitate and create jobs and skills among in our african american and other communities. The H1B program is another example of a devastating program that does massive damage to this country, we have so many poor people in this country and instead of getting them into these jobs we give them away to foreign aliens. It is insane and it is sad. The African American is being destroyed by the drugs coming across the southern border, H1B visas, outdated schools and education models and public education systems that do not engage interest in IT and the jobs of tomorrow, investment capital being goblled up by foreign aliens, offshoring, blue collar jobs being stolen by immigrants from Mexico and white collar jobs being stolen by H1B visas. The black youth unemployment is twice as high as the national average yet we do not seem to care about these our own citizens, instead we help foreign aliens come in and steal their jobs, investment opporunties that can be available to them, and even steal the education and college grant money that could be available to our own black citizens who have lived in this country for generations.

    2. Re:Will help american entreprenuers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S. I am an African American who wrote the above

      Sure thing buddy. I believe you. I bet you even have a few black friends.

  25. Re:Appalled by the bigotry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have become friends with some people who are here on H1B visas from India.

    I have known some phenomenal IT professionals who are Indians on H1B visas and I have known some nearly incompetent IT professionals. It's a mixed lot, just like with Americans.

    The problem that I and many other Americans have with H1B visas is how they're used to depress wages in our field.

    If companies couldn't fill the ranks with H1B visa employees, we would be making at least 30% more money.

    Your presence here costs us money. It's easier to deal with when we encounter people who are good at what they do and it's maddening when we encounter people who don't.

  26. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Lordpidey · · Score: 1

    Don't blame people for the sins of their ancestors. I am my own person. I am not my father. I am not my mother. I am not my grandparent.

    --
    Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
  27. Re: It's just a loophole to smuggle in temp worker by Shompol · · Score: 1

    We already have this, the role is called "a manager", and it is an employee position.

  28. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by flopsquad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't blame people for the sins of their ancestors. I am my own person. I am not my father. I am not my mother. I am not my grandparent.

    I presume this statement is in reference to DACA kids, right?

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  29. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by iamgnat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone living in America bitching about people coming to this country "illegally" is a huge hypocrite. Just ask the next Cherokee you run across.

    Pretty sure there is no one in the country that was born prior to 1776. US law states that if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen regardless of your parents status.

    So while our ancestors did some shit things to the native population, no US citizen can be considered to be here illegally at this point in time and is therefore not a hypocrite when they say they want people to immigrate here by legal means.

    in case you forgot he lost the vote.

    And there we have it folks, proof of a clueless moron that just toes the party line.

    First of all, the POTUS is not elected by the popular vote and never has been. You can argue all day long if the electoral college is right or not, but it is the long standing law on how the election happens. Hillary knew this, but chose to go for the pointless popular vote.

    Secondly, the only cases of electors going against the will of the people they were representing were ones that tried (I believe all were overturned?) to vote against Trump even though that's how their state voted.

    Finally, for all the crying about how Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election, where is the complaining about how the DNC did the exact same thing (though through back door dealings and flouting their own rules rather than following long standing law) to nominate Hillary to begin with? Until it was clear that the fix was in, Bernie won primary after primary, yet some how the delegates kept going to Hillary??? Talk about being a hypocrite!

  30. Clovis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just ask the next Cherokee you run across

    How about I ask one of the Clovis people from current day France that were here 4 thousand years before the Cherokee came over from modern Russia? Whats that? You didn't realize the Cherokee weren't the first here and Europeans beat them by thousands of years. Hmm.

    1. Re:Clovis by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Citation needed. The Clovis people came from Siberia, and are ancestors of most Native Americans.

    2. Re: Clovis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As always. Wikipedia comes to the rescue.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

      IANA archaeologist, so will not enter a debate on the validity of the different theories, but here you have the requested citation.

      J.

    3. Re: Clovis by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This doesn't support your point at all. You said the Clovis people were from France. This says the Solutrean people were from France, and pre-dated the Clovis civilization, and the hypothesis is that the Solutreans got to the new world first.

  31. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or did you forget his (nonsensical) comments about "rapists and murderers" coming from Mexico?

    Here's one from a couple of days ago.

    That particular article doesn't even mention that the guy was an illegal alien. Earlier news did. Guess that wasn't politically correct.

  32. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Don't blame people for the sins of their ancestors. I am my own person. I am not my father. I am not my mother. I am not my grandparent.

    I'm not. I'm saying that if the reason you are here is because of illegal immigration (and most of us are to one degree or another) then it is a dick move by YOU to hold it against someone else. America is a nation of immigrants. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

  33. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a load of horseshit. I am an African American. I oppose all immigration because it is bad for black folks. A complete stop to all immigration is not racist and xenophobic because it protects and helps all Americans equally. I voted for Trump because the package he offered was a better deal for all Americans, especially Black folks. When you allow yourself to be driven by old grudges, like you do, you are not seeing the present situation. Mass immigration is destroying black americans. The fact is the policies of the DNC are destroying the black community because it is flooding the labor market with cheap foreign labor that are cutting us off from below and H1B labor that are cutting us off from above. Drugs are flooding across the southern border which destroy often inner city black communities. Foreign aliens and their anchor babies are consuming vast amounts of money that are therefore not available for education and rehabilitation for our own black communities. The youth are trapped in failing schools that do not encourage and foster interest and innovation in technology and the jobs of tomorrow. Giving investment money to foreign aliens means less available to American citizens to start their own businesses. We need to fix the education systems in this country plus we need to strengthen and reinforce the family and communities from the corrosive and corrupting influence of Hollywood. I would dare say that cord cutting coupled with smart phones could be a positive influence as we are getting our youth away from the corrupting images on TV and instead smart phones allow them much more access to research material and other things such as Wikipedia that you cannot get on TV. The difference is TV was more of a force fed limited channel while the smart phone allows one reach and access information rather than to have Hollywood control the channel. Trumps plan for more apprenticeships would do immense good for our black community because this is what many black youth need, a clear viable and legitimate path to where they can respectably make a decent living.

    The fact is big corporations want to bring in foreign cheap labor and bought the DNC to be able to bring in unlimited mexican and so on immigration. Their plan is to basically throw the African American under the bus and bring in cheap foreign alien instead. More foreign labor means less jobs for black folks. It means less public money for help with education and training for black folks. They then try to pretend they "care" by throwing more freebie welfare gimmicks and actually insult black people through their implied suggestion that black people can only manage to live off welfare and are not as capable as foreign aliens to fill the jobs in our economy so we need to put us on welfare and give our jobs to foreign aliens. Why do we keep voting for the DNC? The DNC controlled hollywood then tries to corrupt the youth and the culture by promoting broken families and high rates of out of wedlock birth and so on. The worst enemy of black people is the DNC and its Hollywood arm.

  34. absolutely pointless program by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    a foreign entrepreneur has to raise at least $250,000 from well-known U.S. investors ... The rule grants a stay in the U.S. of 30 months, which can be extended for an additional 30 months. Founders can't apply for a green card during that time. DHS has estimated about 3,000 entrepreneurs would qualify under the rule.

    That's a ridiculously pointless program. No sensible, skilled entrepreneur will want to come to the US on a temporary visa and start building a company without the security of permanent residence. I'm glad this program is being killed.

    1. Re:absolutely pointless program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a foreign entrepreneur has to raise at least $250,000 from well-known U.S. investors ... The rule grants a stay in the U.S. of 30 months, which can be extended for an additional 30 months. Founders can't apply for a green card during that time. DHS has estimated about 3,000 entrepreneurs would qualify under the rule.

      That's a ridiculously pointless program. No sensible, skilled entrepreneur will want to come to the US on a temporary visa and start building a company without the security of permanent residence. I'm glad this program is being killed.

      Well, they wouldn't now that the Trumpanzees are running amock trying to ruin everything so that "wrong" people decide to leave.

      But back when we were trying to build this country into something other than a safe space for low-skilled mouth-breathers, it would make perfect sense for a foreign entrepreneur to move here and hitch their wagon to our (formerly) globally respected society.

    2. Re:absolutely pointless program by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, as you theorise from the armchair, did you speak with any of the foreigners who like this route and try it? Or did you dismiss it out of hand because you can't imagine a reality where this could be true?

      As a non-American, if I were to do a startup, I'd want to do it here because of the large market and favourable funding environment. Permanent Residency isn't as attractive a carrot as you'd imagine.

    3. Re:absolutely pointless program by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, as you theorise from the armchair, did you speak with any of the foreigners

      I am an immigrant and working in high tech myself. So, yes, I have dealt with these issues myself.

      As a non-American, if I were to do a startup, I'd want to do it here because of the large market and favourable funding environment. Permanent Residency isn't as attractive a carrot as you'd imagine.

      If you're any good, you can easily get a regular work visa which allows you to apply for a green card right away. So this program is simply not needed.

    4. Re:absolutely pointless program by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Guess we've both been through the visa parade then, but come out with different theories. I sit on the venture side so perhaps a slightly different viewpoint. To go through the route you spelled out means that in order to start a company you need to a) get a job that gives work visa, b) work there long enough they let you apply for green card, c) quit while retaining right to stay in the country/ wait till you get the green card (which could be quite long - I know people who're still waiting after 5 years), and d) start a startup.

      Usually that's not the way entrepreneurs would like to start something. They're not optimising for a route towards owning a company, but rather trying to get funding so they can solve a problem they find pressing. Making potential entrepreneurs jump through hoops is usually not a great way to get the best talent to come over.

    5. Re:absolutely pointless program by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      To go through the route you spelled out means that in order to start a company you need to a) get a job that gives work visa, b) work there long enough they let you apply for green card, c) quit while retaining right to stay in the country/ wait till you get the green card (which could be quite long - I know people who're still waiting after 5 years), and d) start a startup.

      If you have money for "your" startup, you can simply get an investor visa. If you don't invest money in "your" startup, you're an employee and can get an employment-based visa.

      Making potential entrepreneurs jump through hoops is usually not a great way to get the best talent to come over.

      The best way of dealing with that is for the US to adopt a point-based system more like what Canada and Australia have, a radical change from the crappy system that we have right now. Trump might push something like that trough, but Democrats are strictly opposed to it.

    6. Re:absolutely pointless program by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Fair enough on the points based system. It's pretty screwed up in its implementation in UK at least (don't know about Oz/ Canada), but still pretty sensible insofar as transparency is concerned.

      The investor visa and employee visa usually don't get awarded to your own startup. FWIW the CEOs I know who're here to run their startups are either on L-1 or E-1.

    7. Re:absolutely pointless program by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The investor visa and employee visa usually don't get awarded to your own startup.

      You won't get it if you say "I want to start a startup and work for it". But a good immigration lawyer can work out how to make it happen.

      The case where you are SOL is if you must invest your own money to make a go at it (because you can't find any other funding) but you have less than $1m. In that case, the Obama visa might have helped you. But that's a pretty rare case. And I think the Obama visa program was more a fig leaf and a distraction.

      As I was saying, I think the US needs to overhaul its immigration system from the ground up to be reoriented primarily towards skilled immigration, regardless of national origin or ethnicity.

  35. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by hey! · · Score: 2

    Right. I've felt if the program actually was designed to meet its ostensible goals, it'd be a good thing. In fact, the program is designed to depress tech wages and transfer technological expertise overseas.

    A program which was focused in bringing in talent would focus on top talent rather than people with commodity skills, and it would give them an almost automatic path to permanent residency. That would actually increase wages for domestic engineers. A top engineer creates jobs for his colleagues.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  36. You're not even trying anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First you are like...

    > The Department of Homeland Security will file an official notice to delay the International Entrepreneur Rule for eight months. The intention is to eliminate the rule entirely, according to sources briefed on the matter who spoke to The Wall Street Journal. The decision isn't final, and a DHS spokesperson told the WSJ that the department "cannot speculate" on the outcome of the review.

    > Trump Plans To Dismantle Obama-Era 'Startup Visa'

    And then you are like...

    > In one of the biggest wins for the right to repair movement yet, the U.S. Copyright Office suggested Thursday that the U.S. government should take actions to make it legal to repair anything you own, forever -- even if it requires hacking into the product's software.

    The US Government Wants To Permanently Legalize the Right To Repair

    Ok, so you don't like white reality show billionaires to become presidents of USA istead of corrupt vagina carrying apparatchiks, but god damn, be more subtle!

  37. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are delusional. Unless you were abandoned at birth, you are a product of you parents their, virtues and their sins. And even if you raised yourself from infancy, you did so in a system established by your ancestors.

    If you live in a corrupt system, you are corrupt. The only way to reduce the taint is to face the truth and work for change.

  38. Free flow of labor and culture by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but I can't see any particularly good reason for any kind of restrictions on the flow of labor. The tech centers are going to be talent magnets no matter what, but I personally wouldn't mind setting up shop someplace tropical and isolated. It's not like there's some finite amount of labor to be done in the world. America as a nation of immigrants has done pretty well for itself so far, and it's not like lazy stupid people are the ones who decide to go live in other countries.

    Humans are going to have to evolve past tribalism at some point.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Free flow of labor and culture by w3woody · · Score: 1

      I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but I can't see any particularly good reason for any kind of restrictions on the flow of labor.

      Personally I'm in complete agreement.

      Generally I find arguments against the free flow of labor to be protectionist in nature--and while in the short term protectionism provides short-term gains to whomever is being protected, in the long term they tend to create drags on the economy. And that's true regardless of what you import: cars, soap or workers.

      Besides, one reason why the quality of immigrants we get in the United States has historically been better than those who stay behind is because the cost (in terms of expense and effort) to immigrate to a foreign country is high, and rather risky. So historically those who immigrate to the United States generally self-select: they are the ones with the means to come here and the willingness to take risks that make them good entrepreneurs.

  39. Re: Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The preceding was paid for by the RNC. The RINOC and the number -900,000,000

  40. Immigrants are not evil people by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    responsible for our problems. But they do crowd us out of the job market. Not the ones here picking fruit, but you'd have to be a fool to work in tech and not see that 80% of the jobs are folks here on work visas or folks who transitioned from a work visa to citizenship. Yes, that helps the economy, but not _my_ economy. I don't get a piece of that because I'm a worker. I don't benefit from the wage suppression that results. And I don't get cheaper prices from wage suppression. Supply and Demand doesn't work that way. Especially when my budget is mostly comprised of necessities like food, shelter, transportation and child rearing.

    You're right to say we could solve our problems _and_ have immigration that benefited the country, but we won't. It's not politically feasible to solve them. We need to tax the wealthy to fund education, fund social programs and safety nets and subsidize worker programs. All things that would drive up wages and costs for the well to do. So I'll take the one thing that _might_ be politically feasible: stopping immigration. Yeah, it's probably bad for the overall economy, but it's good for _my_ economy. And after 30 years of declining wages and rising college costs I'll take what little I (might) get.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Immigrants are not evil people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that helps the economy, but not _my_ economy.

      Your economy is your problem.

      If you are a talented worker and/or have a realistic idea of the value of your skills, you have nothing to worry about from immigration.

      Nothing is stopping anyone from rising to their appropriate level. Or falling. But in either case, a more vibrant economy helps everyone. If you can't compete with immigrants for high paying jobs, the lower paying jobs you are qualified for will be more plentiful because those immigrants are buying things. If you can't even get a low paying job, those highly paid immigrants will be paying taxes to put food on your table.

  41. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    So you're saying we should just let everybody that wants to come here in right? Until the whole world lives here right? We already have too many people. We need to drastically limit that for a while.

  42. I have a feeling... by multi+io · · Score: 2

    If the Democrats had publicly opposed regulation, taxes and state-run company restructurings, Trump would be nationalizing banks and proposing soviet-style five-year plans right now just to "win" against Obama.

    1. Re:I have a feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, it appears to me that Trump is so devoid of governing ideas (anything except "I'm great" and "I won the election when everyone said I wouldn't" and "I'm great") that he is just looking at what Obama did and signing EO's to stop doing them.

      It's gotten so bad that he is lying about problems and offering solutions that are already on the books. Talk about taking credit for other people's work

    2. Re:I have a feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the #Resist movement isn't based on the same kind of logic? Get fucking real. Democrats and Republicans are both bitches and so are you.

    3. Re:I have a feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling if Trump had publicly opposed murder and rape, lefties would be marching in the streets defending the criminals just to spite Trump.

      Oh wait, that's already happening.

  43. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by gtall · · Score: 1

    Trump isn't owned by corporations; rather it is their allegiance he craves for two reasons: (1) he is needy and has never been accepted by other corporations and so he figures being prez will win him their respect, (2) he has a brain-dead idea of unemployment and figures the big corporations do all the hiring, so he figures giving them and their owners more money will make them hire more and thus he can claim that.

    With Trump, there are two rules: (1) everything he does he does for himself, (2) he destroys everything he touches.

  44. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever it was and who was here before does not matter. This is now our place, my place, my home. You can give away your bed and TV to random strangers and feed them. But do not take away from me and mine. There is no right for others to take my shit, no matter if I worked for it or not. It is mine and I want to keep it.

  45. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, am I the only one that thinks there really is a shadow government of moneyed elites who basically choose these laws that pretend to do one thing but so clearly do something else?... Anyone else?

  46. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    why do you assume that everyone wants to leave their own country and come to yours? thats the excuse all xenophobes use for emotional effect, the same type of people in the UK say exactly the same thing. The arrogant stance of "we are better than everyone else" is astounding.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  47. Dismantle? Really? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    The International Entrepreneur Rule, signed by former President Obama days before he left office in January

    President Obama was able to completely architect, build, and implement an entire new category for immigration operations in just a few days? This is probably just President Trump stopping the first part of the process (architecting it), before anything else even started. But it does make great political grist for the mill!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  48. So the /. mods allow negative headlines only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when it comes to this President. I and many others have tried to get positive headlines through to the people, but the mods prevent them from being posted with the typical "we can't get to everyone's posts, but thanks anyway" responses. /. is FAKE NEWS For Nerds!!!

    1. Re:So the /. mods allow negative headlines only by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      fuck you

  49. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Actually in looking up the faithless electors it appears that more abandoned Hillary than Trump.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  50. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not racist to want a job in the field you're qualified for. When you see companies hiring less qualified individuals because they're cheaper, that's acceptable ire.
    Did you not read the latest article about McDonalds replacing cashiers with sales-kiosks? Is the cashier who looses their position & sad about it now a robot-racist? No? Didn't think so.

    Just because someone may have 'feelings' does not shield them from scorn when they displace or disadvantage another someone. And ESPECIALLY when it's protected & encouraged from the sham that is H1b program. Use it to hire the genius scientist or visionary, not entire departments of drone workers.

  51. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by iamgnat · · Score: 1

    Actually in looking up the faithless electors it appears that more abandoned Hillary than Trump.

    Thanks for the link. Not as I recall it at the time, but that could easily be a signal/noise ratio issue. They mention a couple that had their faithless votes overturned, but I thought there were a few more (about a dozen spread across the states)?

    I'll study up. Thanks again.

  52. Re: Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong about the root of the problem. Poor people fighting over the leftovers are not a cause, but an effect of the conservative "trickle down economics" abstract concept.

    When you give more money to the rich, you never, ever, get it back. The more you give, the less scraps you get to fight over, along with all other different ethnic, genders, age groups.

    Getting people to fight over skin color is one more tactic they found to avoid the wealth gap growing exponentially issue.

    At one point the elastic will break, and if the haves don't have robot security yet, it will be a bloody revolution.

  53. Re: Trump on illegal immigrants by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    I don't think everybody wants to come to the US. However, there are strong forces drawing some of the most talented to come to the US, in effect stealing the best talent from the country that fostered and created them. A talented engineer from Namibia should give back to the people he was raised out of, not to Steve Cook's annual bonus.

    We are all captive in the situations that we were raised up out of. There needs to be a limit to the degree that outside forces can draw us out of that to some other place.

  54. Re:Trump this, Trump that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    300 I street, Sacramento.

  55. $250k is a minimum, not a maximum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After that $250k, they could also start looking at non-American investors.

    And there is such a thing as borrowing money. Of course if the business fails you may have to declare bankruptcy and a lot of investors and lenders get screwed. But hey, even the POTUS declared bankruptcy 4 times.

  56. Preventing competition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Jared selling green cards for a $500,000 "investment"? Doesn't want competition?

  57. Re:It's just a loophole to smuggle in temp workers by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    This scheme in fact involves creating US jobs

    No, this is just another avenue to smuggle foreigners into the country. The plan that this will be used for creating jobs is really far fetched. Anyone who can show $250K (do they even need to show it?) is allowed to to invite anyone they please for 5 years. The cover that the money will be used to start a business is really hard to prove or verify. Also, who is going to invest into a business of a foreign tourist with a temp visa?

    Ohhh ooooh smuggling foreigners, ooooh oooooh chupacabra!!!!

  58. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I am so native that Canada has to let me in.

    It doesn't work that way. Not only did we not have immigration laws, the reality is that was hundreds of years ago. It was tragic, horrible, and vile. But, not one person is alive who is responsible for it.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  59. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Rule #2 seems unlikely.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  60. 36% Approval Rating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had Obama built a 30' wall all along the Mexican border and gotten Mexico to pay for it, . . .

    The funny thing is, if Obama wanted to, he probably could have got it done.

    Ol' 36? Not!! That inexperienced piece of shit can go fuck himself.

    Personally, I like Johnny Depp's line of thinking.

  61. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are delusional. Unless you were abandoned at birth, you are a product of you parents their, virtues and their sins. And even if you raised yourself from infancy, you did so in a system established by your ancestors.

    If you live in a corrupt system, you are corrupt. The only way to reduce the taint is to face the truth and work for change.

    You are dangerously insane and should be put down like a rabid dog.

    Nothing personal.

  62. Re: Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. It means just deport them. Their parents are the only ones who deserve jail time.

  63. Re: Trump on illegal immigrants by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Steve Cook? Ha, ha.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  64. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've never gone through the citizenship process, or watched it personally, you can't be qualified to comment on the "path to citizenship" being difficult. It's not. It's actually incredibly easy *once you have permanent residency*, and I would be really really sad to see it loosened further. (I *have* gone through this process with family twice, so I *do* know whereof I speak.)

    Beyond having been a legal resident for X years (X can be shorter for spouses of American citizens, but is at least 3 years), the only other requirements to become a citizen are demonstration of basic proficiency in English, American history and civics, and swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States. The civics test only requires a 70% passing rate out of 10 questions (chosen randomly out of a possible 100, which are posted publicly with their answers!), many of which are like "who was the first president", and "name at least two native american tribes".

    As one of the primary benefits (and responsibilities) of a citizen is to VOTE, we all should want to ensure that new citizens can read and understand the ballots they are going to be casting.

    Now if you want to talk about the path to becoming a permanent resident being difficult, that's a different matter entirely, and there I'd agree that we should try to simplify and streamline this process, as well as a process to allowing temporary work visas for industries that need them, in a way that does not negatively impact US workers. (H-1bs are particularly problematic here -- but a simple fix to that problem would be to require employers utilizing them to pay a large up front tax -- e.g. $100,000 per H-1b issued, per year maintained for a minimum of 3 years or somesuch. This would allow H-1bs to still be used to support cases where foreign expertise is needed and simply cannot be found domestically -- I do know of a few cases of this in my own past -- while preventing employers from using the H-1b as a way to obtain cheap labor. The H-1b must be *more* expensive than domestic labor IMO.

    This would also encourage employers to try *hard* to develop local expertise instead of hiring foreign workers, probably further stimulating salaries.

  65. Checks and Balances by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    This is how we do it. We don't just blindly enforce the laws. We do the same thing with Jury Nullification.

    Our political system is a mess because it was designed from the ground up by wealthy landowners to protect their interests to the detriment of the farmers working the land. It's why we have a Senate/House instead of a parliament. These sorts of distortions are what you get when you have a system built on oligarchy trying to function as a democracy. Unless you can get support to rebuild our institutions you're gonna have to live with these compromises.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  66. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Awesome troll AC

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  67. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    When I saw you original comment I was curious given all the hub bub about getting electors to switch their vote and I didn't know how it panned out so I went to look it up to find out my self. To be fair there were 10 faithless electors in total 7 which were validated and 3 that were invalidated so you about a dozen comment seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  68. Re:It's just a loophole to smuggle in temp workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's cool, we get it. We'll go over to the EU and start business there, it's more international business friendly these days anyway without travel restrictions and crazy CBP guards.

  69. Re:It's just a loophole to smuggle in temp workers by Shompol · · Score: 1

    If you want a chupacabra managing your startup then get it a proper H1B visa with the rest of them. I don't see the need for a special loophole, sorry.

  70. nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep em dumb. Don't care for these hand modelers anyway! No pride in computer crap. Work the coal mines, boys.

  71. Re:Trump this, Trump that... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    "Lose" by 2.86 million MORE votes?
    Wrong.

  72. Sheesh by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

    Believe it or not, you don't have some "right" to come here.

    I mean, it's quite flattering that so very, very, very many of you want to, but those of us already here get to decide if you do or not.

    1. Re:Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, you don't have some "right" to come here.

      I mean, it's quite flattering that so very, very, very many of you want to, but those of us already here get to decide if you do or not.

      It's cool. I'm a citizen and they are all with me. I ordered them to replace a bunch of obsolete workers that I left behind a few decades ago.

  73. Prosecutorial Discretion by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Prosecutorial discretion has been common law for centuries. It absolutely is the federal government's discretion whether and how to enforce the law. You're getting called partisan because you're blatantly ignoring reality in preferring one side of a political issue. It was an unusual legal event, but it was in no sense wrong.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Prosecutorial Discretion by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      Prosecutorial discretion has been common law for centuries. It absolutely is the federal government's discretion whether and how to enforce the law. You're getting called partisan because you're blatantly ignoring reality in preferring one side of a political issue. It was an unusual legal event, but it was in no sense wrong.

      Only the government wasn't prosecuting in this case, they were defending. I'm getting called partisan because while I presented two examples (one from each a D and an R to be fair), someone decided to focus on one over the other.

      I think my initial point stands: presidents ignoring the law has been the norm for the last 20-ish years.

    2. Re:Prosecutorial Discretion by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      More like two hundred. But either way, you're wrong about the executive's responsibilities.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  74. Damned Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A âoequalified investorâ is an individual or entity that has, in the last five years, invested more than $600,000 in startups, of which at least two created a minimum of five full-time jobs or generated at least $500,000 in revenue with annualized growth of at least 20%.

    Go read the fucking bill you dung-ridden cretin. Hell, read the fucking summary.

  75. Re:Trump this, Trump that... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    Dems have lost all four special elections so far. Heck, at this rate, we;re gonna see Trump get reelected. The mid term elections should tell the tale....

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  76. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IWhen you see companies hiring less qualified individuals because they're cheaper, that's acceptable ire.

    No, its not. If the company hires substandard employees, they will produce a substandard product which will raise the value of better products created by better employees. If that doesn't happen, then the substandard company is simply hitting a sweet spot in the market and not over-paying for un-needed competence.

    Did you not read the latest article about McDonalds replacing cashiers with sales-kiosks? Is the cashier who looses their position & sad about it now a robot-racist? No? Didn't think so.

    "Racist." "Racial-Luddite." Whatever.

  77. Re:Trump this, Trump that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dems have lost all four special elections so far. Heck, at this rate, we;re gonna see Trump get reelected. The mid term elections should tell the tale....

    All in GOP controlled districts, where the GOP candidate underperformed. Republicans are losing ground. Squeaking out a single digit win when you've been winning by double digits for decades is nothing to crow about, and the trends are all bad for Republicans.

    Here's something for you to dismiss as "fake news": http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/handel-republicans-suburban-nightmare-215289

  78. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by cryptizard · · Score: 1

    Why do you think that everyone would just come to the US? More Mexicans are leaving the country than entering it for the last couple years.

  79. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    I never said we are better. I was saying and have been saying that we need to take care of our own before we try to help others.

  80. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have some definition of your "own", go ahead and take care of them your damned self. Don't try to steal my money or otherwise force me to support some loser just because of the geographic location of their birth.

  81. Immigration is key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting immigration policy right is the single most important thing we can do. As Pat Paulsen pointed out during a run for the presidency: "All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

  82. Re:American tech workers are incredibly racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would also encourage employers to try *hard* to develop local expertise instead of hiring foreign workers, probably further stimulating salaries.

    Horseshit. That's not how hiring works. When businesses need to fill a need, they do not want a trainee. They expect developers to spring fully-formed out of the ground like dragon's teeth.

    Tribalism and protectionism are stupid and vile. Open the borders.

  83. Re: Trump this, Trump that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet tough guy!

  84. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, I'm not an immigrant I'm a native (look up the word if it causes you confusion), second, show me the laws that you assert to have been broken in the 17th and 18th century when my ancestors were welcomed here by the current residents, third this is true of the vast majority of current American citizens.

  85. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why are they complaining in Mexico about the USA enhancing border controls and erecting various physical barriers?

  86. Re:Trump on illegal immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure there is no one in the country that was born prior to 1776. US law states that if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen regardless of your parents status.

    Not strictly true, for instance the US law covering naturalization due to birthright citizenship is quite vague on the case of a child born inside the USA to parents who are here illegally. The POLICY is to make those kids citizens, but the law is ambiguous (checkout the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof") on the matter.

  87. Re:Dismantle? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not what your quote says. "Days before" is referring to Obama's tenure in office, not the amount of time that went into the bill.

    People like you are why we can't have nice things.

  88. Re:Trump this, Trump that... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    On top of that, Republican'ts now held in lowest regard since Watergate!
    Why no one wants to be a Republican running in a free election without gerrymandering!