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.
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.
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.
If you think that's a joke, you have apparently misunderstood how government is supposed to work.
If the defendants in this lawsuit wrote a letter to the court for any purpose other than explaining why the court lacked jurisdiction, they were dumb and basically invited the court to issue a default judgment. They shouldn't be surprised when that happened. They can try to have the judgment vacated for lack of jurisdiction now, but it will be harder than if they contested it at the right time.
Open access to scientific papers is important, as is providing monetary support to the poorest people, but vigilantes don't get to decide how that's done at the expense of other people's rights. You can't rob a bank to give the money to poor people, and you can't infringe copyright just because you think those copyrights are being abuse.
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.
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.
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'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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Temperature control can be a little fuzzy without spoiling food. If the sun is shining, maybe the refrigerator keeps running until it hits 37 degrees F; if it's cloudy, it stops at 39 F, in hopes that it will be sunny again soon.
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?
As I thought, you got nothing. You seem upset that wood shrinks and expands as it dries or absorbs moisture. If that upsets you, maybe you shouldn't be working with wood.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
You might fire barbs at the existing system, but the existing system has howitzers, and isn't afraid to use them to return fire.
If you think that's a joke, you have apparently misunderstood how government is supposed to work.
If the defendants in this lawsuit wrote a letter to the court for any purpose other than explaining why the court lacked jurisdiction, they were dumb and basically invited the court to issue a default judgment. They shouldn't be surprised when that happened. They can try to have the judgment vacated for lack of jurisdiction now, but it will be harder than if they contested it at the right time.
Open access to scientific papers is important, as is providing monetary support to the poorest people, but vigilantes don't get to decide how that's done at the expense of other people's rights. You can't rob a bank to give the money to poor people, and you can't infringe copyright just because you think those copyrights are being abuse.
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.
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.
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'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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Temperature control can be a little fuzzy without spoiling food. If the sun is shining, maybe the refrigerator keeps running until it hits 37 degrees F; if it's cloudy, it stops at 39 F, in hopes that it will be sunny again soon.
Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?
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?
As I thought, you got nothing. You seem upset that wood shrinks and expands as it dries or absorbs moisture. If that upsets you, maybe you shouldn't be working with wood.
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.
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.
[citation needed]