Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Officially Delays 'Startup Visa' Rule (sfchronicle.com)
Trisha Thadani, reporting for SFChronicle: The Trump administration has officially delayed a rule that would allow some foreign entrepreneurs to stay in the U.S. and build their companies. During this delay, the administration will propose a plan to rescind the rule all together, according to a Federal Register notice that will be published Tuesday. This official notice, which will be published in the Federal Register Tuesday, comes exactly one week before the rule was slated to go into effect. It will be delayed until March 14. The International Entrepreneur Rule, is the closest the United States has come to the "startup visa" Silicon Valley has long sought, was approved by the Department of Homeland Security in January during President Barack Obama's waning hours in office.
Conservatives are generally interested in reducing regulations for the benefit of businesses. It's a shame that xenophobia is getting in the way of something that will grow businesses and create jobs. This isn't going to take away jobs but instead create them and put Americans to work. This isn't H-1B bullshit. There really isn't a downside to keeping skilled labor in the United States that's going to create jobs for Americans. But the xenophobes that make up nearly 50% of the United States are stupid enough to turn away job creation. Sad!
And roll the dice. But let's stop playing games with privileged corporate visas that don't benefit ordinary Americans, it just benefits large corporations. Taxpayers like us are paying the bills, corporations have lawyers and accountants who help them avoid taxes and regulations that small businesses can't.
was approved by the Department of Homeland Security in January during President Barack Obama's waning hours in office
In other words, it's another one of these policies that is so utterly important to our country that Barack Obama waited until he was 7.95 years through his 8 year term to enact it, and then post-dated it to go into effect during Trump's presidency. Obviously it wasn't a big deal for Obama.
Do you have ESP?
I believe you had to raise $250,000 from investors to qualify. So it would be option #2.
That requires at least a 1m investment of your own money into any business, not just your own.
The new one stated that the buisness that you have a substantial role in managing and own at least 10% of, must have started in last 5 years, have growth potential and have received investment from US lenders of at least 250k or 100k from federal grants.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Does that allow you to even hire a single engineer (with overhead) in the valley?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yep, the current administration is rolling back the previous administration's actions one regulation after another..
Isn't that what the current president said he'd do? That's what I remember from the campaign...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So I invest $250k for a 90% share of your LLC. You come to the US and start your "business" where you work for minimum wage and I am your sole client with a 5-year locked-in contract. Versus paying the prevailing wage of $100k+ per year that could save me a lot of money.
Not all federal legislation is intended to benefit silicon valley and startups do exist in other places.
that might benefit American workers. These Visas were rife with potential fraud (only required $250k, little or no verification). I hate to say it because I've got friends that'll be killed by his healthcare policy but if he actually makes good on the rest of his promises to curtail the H1-B program et al his presidency will benefit me personally. At least as long as I never need pre-existing coverage (or can't just afford to move to California, NY or Massachusetts).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The headline seems to suggest that the introduction of that visa is being delayed. Reading the very next sentence, it states that following the suspension of that rule, it will be rescinded i.e. revoked altogether. In other words, the headline suggests that startup companies will get that visa, but somewhat later. Which is quite contrary to the article, which states that the visa, which they were getting until now, will be revoked and they'll have to make other arrangements
It's "altogether", not "all together", you illiterate buffoons.
Not if the order rescinding the rule is signed with a bunch of different people's hands all holding onto the pen at the same time...
(Hey, they have cabinet meetings where they're required to go from person to person praising the President - so anything is possible)
#DeleteChrome
I believe you had to raise $250,000 from investors to qualify. So it would be option #2.
That seems like quite a low threshold and meant for creating a loophole....
Make the threshold $10 million, have effective government oversight to check and see that these are real start-ups intended on providing products and/or services (and not just to a related company or person) and then let's talk about whether it is a good thing to have wealthy foreigners come here to employ Americans.
Either way we should really focus on a reasonable number of green cards and new citizenships for people that want to come here and become American citizens.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Real investors? Or can you or your wife simply invest in your business with 250k line-of-credit against the house?
If not, what if we run it through a holding company so that it looks more arms length? "See, I have memorandum of understanding from MyOfficeChair Startup Venture Capital Ltd, and they've wired the money to the account; see here... and here...
Seriously... the idea that you need 250k lined up from investors sounds good on paper to people who think that's a lot of money. But for a lot of people, that's really not much money at all; and if they just need to 'front it' for the duration of the application process a LOT of people could come up with it for a couple months.
I know I could.
Sounds to me like it clears the way for US workers to innovate.
Just out of curiosity, how was this 'Startup Visa' rule stopping US workers from innovating? Did each issue 'Startup Visa' issued cause the innovation centres in the brains of one hundred US workers to be deactivated by means of some evil liberal JuJu magic or something?
I guess everyone hoped he was lying about "repeal everything" and would just stick to silly red meat issues his voters thought were evil. Like "common core" which inexplicably got labeled as satanic brainwashing rather than an easier way to learn addition. Not, you know, actually going after everything Obama did. The vast majority of what any government does is pretty mundane and non-controversial. How many voters in red states were rooting for keeping foreign entrepreneurs out? I'm sure if you told them it was a rule Obama put into place they'd voice an opposition to it, but no one was that I can tell. Why get rid of it? This is seeming more like religious opposition to the majority of Americans who happen to be not far-right.
Considering all the other things he's lied about, and considering how few people support him, I don't think it's at all a given he was going to waste time and the country's money on repealing all the minutia that Obama did.
You know, people keep saying that: if we don't open our country up to the tidal wave of highly-skilled immigrants that are chomping at the bit to come over here and do the jobs Americans don't know how to do, we're going to lose out to another, more enlightened, more progressive nation. I'm still left scratching my head as to exactly what we'd be losing in this scenario, except for a bunch of immigrants who are doing "highly-skilled" jobs rather than Americans. I guess they move over here and buy cars and houses and groceries, so that stimulates the economy, but if that's why we're importing people, why limit ourselves to just those with "high-tech" degrees? From my perspective as an (American) programmer, it seems like the vast majority of H1B-visa immigrants are coming in from India. Yet... if India is brimming with highly-skilled technical talent, why exactly is it that India itself hasn't become this progressive bastion of technical enrichment? They don't even have to sift through immigration queues, they're already there!
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
You're forgetting property taxes, which can be huge in many areas (esp. the northeast US states)).
Also, there's sales tax and gas taxes, plus things like car taxes/car registration fees.
Finally, I thought FICA taxes maxed out somewhere a little over 100k of income, so instead of looking at $10M/year income, look at $110k perhaps: there, you get the full brunt of FICA taxes, plus sales and gas taxes will be a far more significant portion of your income.
Also, if someone is self-employed, they have additional self-employment taxes.
See, there's this reservoir of American innovation, and the levels are way down. Every time you allow a foreigner to come here an innovate, the reservoir is depleted because American innovators get discouraged and decide to go on disability or become homeless. Because American innovators are sensitive broflakes who are easily triggered by people with different shades of skin or funny accents. And venture capitalists will flock to the foreign startups like fraternity brothers flocking to the hot undergrads. So basically, American innovators will become the VC equivalent of fat chicks at a kegger. Eventually, they might get some venture capital, but only after all the VCs are shitfaced and unable to achieve anything like a tumescent venture capital state. I hope that answers your question.
Back in my day, we never had to deal with any of these pesky foreign innovators. No sir. Now, we name our electric car companies after them. We're going to hell, I tell you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Start up" visas if you're lucky are there so that rich people can buy their way into a country. If you're not lucky they're used to bring in cheap labor. Paperwork gets forged and the people coming here to start companies instead get jobs. That's the fear. If we weren't already staring down 20 years of H1-B abuses maybe we'd be a little more receptive to these kinds of programs. Show me that the existing rules can be enforced first. Show me that the intent of the existing programs aren't constantly being circumvented. Then we can talk about new programs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Most of startups are failing to begin with. US is not hostile, since the key program, EB-1, targeted for top level proven talent is intact. There is also EB-2. Reality is that "investor visa" was abused, and that is the reason it is being rolled back. It was basically turned to money barter to visa, under the disguise of investment, see one link here https://www.theguardian.com/us.... Why nobody is discussing the reasoning why "investor visa" has been abused and, probably, it was the right thing to do.
and the progressives. They're not saying we won't pay for it. They're saying we _can_ and _should_ pay for it. They then proceed to point to all the other wealthy countries paying for it just fine. Big difference.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Back in my day, we never had to deal with any of these pesky foreign innovators. No sir. Now, we name our electric car companies after them. We're going to hell, I tell you.
Hmmm... In that case, perhaps I can interest you in some imported hand baskets?
"Unions are linked to mafia" reads headlines of media companies owned by international corporate conglomerates. Hmmm
Folks don't work less if you tax them, especially rich folks. We had a 90% marginal tax rate in the 50s and it was the largest period of growth in US History. Growth slowed to a crawl after tax cuts for the rich started making it a better deal for them to sit on all their money than to spend it.
Minimum Wage does the same thing to a point. And yeah, I can already hear you typing up that tired old talking point about a $200 minimum wage. But think about what happened before minimum wage. Company Stores. Wage Slavery. Yes, there are countries that get by without it, but they're mostly heterogeneous enough that they won't tolerate treating people they see as fellow countrymen as slaves. That doesn't work in our melting pot of easily preyed on minorities.
Basically, as long as you're paying attention and careful to adjust as needed and only as needed there are no trade offs. The trade offs come into play when you try to apply ideology and deeply held beliefs beyond: Everybody deserves a good ilfe.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Because the conviction is emotional, not intellectual.
The tone is consistent, not the propositions delivered by that tone.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.