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.
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?
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.
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.
'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.
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).
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.
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.
Startups don't employ people? Since when?
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".
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.
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:
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.
"Terrorism" (tm)
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."
Yep.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
$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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.........
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.
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?
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.
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
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."
We already have this, the role is called "a manager", and it is an employee position.
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
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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
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/
'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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
"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)
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
Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?
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?
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)
$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
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!
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.
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.
Actually in looking up the faithless electors it appears that more abandoned Hillary than Trump.
Time to offend someone
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
fuck you
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.
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.
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??????
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
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.
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.
You would know about twelve year old sophistication, you potty mouthed turd.
Please grow up. Embrace adult conversation.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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'
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."
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.
Rule #2 seems unlikely.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
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...
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.
but more voters voted for Clinton than Trump. Your point is null.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
so you are Irish then?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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.
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)
Steve Cook? Ha, ha.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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?
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.
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.
Won't that cost more?
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."
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/
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:
What can I logically get from this statement? Let's parse it:
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
Syrian Refugees don't get H-1Bs...
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
Awesome troll AC
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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
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.
subway are known for having low franchise startup costs
Nullius in verba
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.
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.
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.
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)
They're not my figures and I'm sure they are optimistic given their source. But...
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
"Lose" by 2.86 million MORE votes?
Wrong.
Trump supports legalizing illegals....IF THEY ARE RUSSIANS or file falsified applications...see Melania.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Since when is a startup a big multinational.
You sound like a socialist. Maybe you should vote for a lefty.
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.
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.
C'mon, admit it, the Demopublican party hates commoners even more than the Republicrat party hates us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.