Trump Administration Officially Delays 'Startup Visa' Rule (sfchronicle.com) 223
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.
promises (Score:2)
Re:promises (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Except this was not a regulation, this was a way to increase jobs in the US by encouraging investment.... This was actually around red tape.
Re: (Score:2)
There is already a perfectly valid way to invest in the US, it is called the stock market.
What this did was provide a path for rich people to buy their way into the country, rather than stand in line like everyone else. Also, this EO would have seen hundreds of startups for the sole purpose of getting their rich owners into the US. It wasn't even clear to me how many if any employees they needed to sustain to be a valid business for the Visa.
Re:promises (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:promises (Score:5, Funny)
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 need capital to innovate (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm bitter. I've watched job after job going to cheap, imported labor.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have unionized. They were warned.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying money to the mafia-nouveau is not the answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:promises (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
No sirree. I only buy American-made goods like iPhones and Trump neckties.
Re: (Score:2)
^triggered af^
Job losses (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's another opportunity to undercut domestic labor. We've seen abuses of the H1B visa program, there's no reason this one won't be abused as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think people were paying enough attention to details to be hoping he was lying.
Take Trump's Obamacare repeal promises. He promised he'd have a plan where everyone would have insurance, regardless of their ability to pay. There would be no cuts to Medicaid. Nobody would lose coverage. Nobody would be worse off financially. Everybody would get much better care than they do now. The government would pay for health care for the uninsured, but save money overall while at the same time being less i
Re: (Score:2)
Then why does he flip flop so often?
Re: (Score:2)
Then why does he flip flop so often?
Reality hits most of us eventually..
However, in this case I think Trump's issue is that he is not skilled in political speaking, the close parsing of focus grouped statements which don't actually mean ANYTHING specific if you look a them, but sure sound like they do to the pre-disposed listeners. Trump just says stuff that most political candidates wouldn't touch with a 10' pole because they are fraught with political mine fields. You need to understand that Trump WANTS a lot of this stuff he is heard to
Re: (Score:2)
But how can you call it conviction that he keeps flip flopping (sometimes in the same speech), and definitely many times currently vs tweets he's made just a few years ago? Changing his opinion once in a while based on new evidence, great.. That's not at all what he does though.
That seems like the opposite of conviction to me.
I would call what the Tea Party politicians do as having more conviction, since they're unwilling to compromise at all (though that also causes great problems).
Re: (Score:3)
Because the conviction is emotional, not intellectual.
The tone is consistent, not the propositions delivered by that tone.
Re: (Score:2)
Common core isn't a way to learn anything. It's about ability standards, not teaching methods.
Re: (Score:2)
So much for jobs (Score:2)
hey start your business in the US, and keep it, you are just not allowed to be here to manage it!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was the EB-5 Visa, but apparently it's something else. I'm not sure I understand then...
Re:So much for jobs (Score:4, Informative)
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.
"Entrepreneur" (Score:2)
1) one-man "entrepreneurs" who own almost nothing and effectively function like independent contractors (e.g., H1B's; maybe like the guy in the article's picture) or
2) real "entrepreneurs" who are hoping to build a business that employs multiple people or makes a tangible product you can buy, and have proven $$$ that they plan to invest in their idea?
Re: "Entrepreneur" (Score:2, Informative)
I believe you had to raise $250,000 from investors to qualify. So it would be option #2.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does that allow you to even hire a single engineer (with overhead) in the valley?
Re: "Entrepreneur" (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all federal legislation is intended to benefit silicon valley and startups do exist in other places.
Re: (Score:2)
My point stands in Missouri, where this "entrepreneur" can hire a single engineer and maybe one liberal arts degree. Maybe.
Re: "Entrepreneur" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: "Entrepreneur" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that a contractor in the bay area cost 100 dollars per hour so around 200K a year , 250K will pay for exactly one H1B
Re: (Score:2)
You had to own atleast 10% of the company and have a managing role.
Have either 250k investment from US investors, or 100k in federal grants.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of the "qualifying" investors?
Idiocy (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is how countries stop being world leaders. When businesses and scientists leave for greener pastures, you know things are hosed. I'd assert that the startup visa rule will do worse for the US economy than the past decisions to give businesses breaks by letting China have the manufacturing jobs.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada's Startup Visa Program [cic.gc.ca]
You're totally right. While the rest of the world is trying to attract the world's top talent, the US is actively hostile towards it. Trump seems to have missed the memo where these people generate wealth and jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump seems to have missed the memo where these people generate wealth and jobs.
Trump is simply doing what he promised he'd do, and he's doing what his voters wanted him to do. His voters don't want these people here, even though his voters also complain a lot about how bad the job situation is for them. Make of that what you will.
Most of Startups fail and EB-5 has been abused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A rule that was suspended before it went into effect was abused?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Automation, not China or unions, is the reason those jobs are never coming back.
Like horses at the turn of the 20th Century, human labor is becoming obsolete.
Apply for citizenship (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
you should look into the visa, that is not how it worked. The investment had to come from a US source qualified, you had to own 10%, and be a managing parterner, and it had to have been started within the last 5 years.
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SOP. Leaving a few legislative bombs is just what lame ducks do.
Re: In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
In some cases it is merely a way for rich foreigners to purchase permanent residency, the so called 'green card' which are actually pink nowadays. There was a recent case in Vermont of an EB-5 scam. The now former Governor and current US Senator Leahy met with the 'investor' but whether they knew it was a scam before it came out in the press is unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
This one not so much. It required actual investment from other parties (in the US) not from the person itself, meaning that you could not buy your way, and they had to be qualifying investments, not just give your buddy money from him to invest.
Re: (Score:3)
One family member with $250k in the USA and they bootstrap the whole family in to buy a convenience store.
Even worse. $100k in government handouts? Fuck that. No government handout, business starting grants to non-citizens. That's the kind of bullshit that got us Solyndra. Bad ideas being given piles of cash by the bribed and clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
how does that one person get on the qualified investor list?
Re: (Score:3)
Give the maximum to both parties presidential campaign?
Perhaps parking a little money in the candidate's son in law's money losing hedge fund, not that we've seen anything like that lately. Did you notice how fast that hedge fund dried up after the bitch lost?
Surely you don't expect this rule to not be gamed?
Re: (Score:2)
That works already, why would they need need a rule for it?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually seen a current green card or are you just repeating what you read? Green cards are indeed green and this is what they look like since 2010 [uscis.gov]. I'm not sure if I should take the erst of your post seriously either.
Re: In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
I swear conservatives are stupider than fucking rocks.
At one point in my life, I was trying to decide which party to join. I would think something like, "you know, I like the conservative philosophy: do things that create jobs." Then I would start listening to actual Republicans, and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That guy literally said all he wants is tax cuts for the rich." Then I would switch to the Democrat party.
Soon I would start listening to actual Democratic politicians and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That politician actually said we can all have free X without paying for it." Then I would switch back to Republicans.
After I switched back and forth enough times, I gave up and became independent. I fully disrespect both parties, although I've come to realize they do an adequate job representing their voters.
Re: In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be honest, the "dumb" is largely the result of the general population's ignorance (i.e. "dumb") of key issues.
As you say, both parties are "dumb". Hell, I've said the same thing about the Libertarian Party being "dumb" (it is too much of the time).
What you see as "dumb" is the result of single issue voters, who seem to only care about that "one thing" they think matters most in the world. And most of the time, it boils down to "I hate ________ (fill in with D or R or whatever) because they don't care about #mysingleissue"
It causes the cognitive dissonance where people ignore huge character flaws to get what they want in candidates (see Hillary and Donald for example), while only seeing character flaws in their opponents (see Donald and Hillary for example). This is why negative campaigns tend to work better than positive ones.
Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.
Re: (Score:2)
Most voters seem to be zero-issue voters: they see the election as kind of a team sport, and want to be on the winning side. They will happily change their opinions on various issues (sometimes with a twisted justification, sometimes not) to help support their team. Others will happily switch between sides, enjoying the feeling that both teams are trying to win their vote
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.
I support this.
Re: (Score:2)
The rich get most of the tax cuts these days because the bottom 45% of workers DONT PAY ANY TAXES (and no, SS is not a tax per se, it is a benefit that you are paying into, since you will get Social Security when you hit 68 or 70).
Sorry, you were right about the Democrats, they want to tax everything while creating class warfare in order to buy the votes of every entitlement taking person in the country. They do not give a shit that welfare ruins people's lives and destroys their sense of worth, they want
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, the Republicans are students of history as well as reality.
Shit dude, you ain't been reading what your favored politicians actually say. "Legitimate rape" and all that. "Repeal Obamacare" then they can't actually do it. What a joke!
Listen to Bernie (Score:5, Interesting)
None of that is true (Score:4, Informative)
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 $200 minimum wage. But think about what happened before minimum wage. Company Stores. Wage Slavery. Yes, there are countries that get by without it, but they're mostly heterogeneous enough that they won't tolerate treating people they see as fellow countrymen as slaves. That doesn't work in our melting pot of easily preyed on minorities.
Basically, as long as you're paying attention and careful to adjust as needed and only as needed there are no trade offs. The trade offs come into play when you try to apply ideology and deeply held beliefs beyond: Everybody deserves a good ilfe.
Horse Sh&$ (Score:2)
Sorry, it does not create jobs. This is exactly what immigration is supposed to be about. Have something good to offer, become a citizen. Most other countries have this same model for immigration, even those in the West.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I agree with you, _today_ there is nothing in the laws which says such. In the past things were quite different. Up until we had a massive amount of welfare, if you came to the US and could not offer anything you went home. Many people came into Ellis Island and were turned back. Many more people made it in and attempted to make it, and went back after failure.
This is why immigration reform has been an issue since I was a kid in the late 60s early 70s. The fact that these issues were not addressed i
Re: (Score:2)
both sides of the isle
You mean "aisle". "Isle" refers to an island. "Aisle" is the walkway separating two sets of seats, such as those that the members of the house of representatives sit in when the legislature is in session.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, it's possible he just missed typing the 'a' key hard enough (on today's shitty, mushy keyboards with no tactile feedback) and didn't notice before hitting "submit", and this stupid site won't allow quick edits after submission like some other sites do. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt, unlike all the morons who write about using the "breaks" in their cars to slow down, or the idiots who can't get "there" and "their" (or worse, "they're") straight, or the fools who think "rediculous"
Re: (Score:2)
It's perhaps a strategy to sneak it past a Congress intent on obstructing him, as it doesn't give them time to react, such as create a specific law against it.
How could they, when it would need his approval to become law? He would obviously veto it.
Return to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of Law? I'd have to wonder if this is a another "rule suspension" where Trump appointees are deliberately ignoring the rule of law and imposing a change in rules without following the procedure required by law.
There is a VERY good reason congress required that rule making follow very strict procedures, that public input is received and that this process take a certain amount of time. This will be yet another in a long line of Trump cabinet members breaking the law and making or breaking regulations wit
Re: (Score:2)
The is the first concrete thing I've seen done (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who exactly will be killed by the repeal of Obamacare? Medicaid and Medicare still exist, there are still over 12,000 free clinics in the US, and no ER in the country can turn you away without treatment. On top of that, there are hundreds of minute clinics (and other similar clinics) where you can get checked out by an RNP for $90 with no insurance...
The whole point of buying insurance is to cover against something unexpected. If you choose not to buy insurance and then you have a massive medical expense
Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done (Score:4, Insightful)
Except every other civilized country in the world has free socialized healthcare.
Because those countries unlike the stupid red neck Republican base realize that there is no such thing as a free market for healthcare.
Only the blood sucking, callous Republican base live in the fantasy world that healthcare shouldn't be regulated.
It's just money (Score:2)
C'mon fucking editors (Score:2)
"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."
How about we re-write this as such:
"The International Entrepreneur Rule, the closest the US has come to enacting a "startup VISA" which Silicon Valley has long sought, was approved by DHS in January during Barack Obama's last hours in office."
Now it makes mor
What Trump really thinks (Score:2)
This is interesting, because it shows what Trump does when two of his core principles are in conflict. Jobs are good! Foreigners are evil! So which of those does he care about more? What does he do when creating jobs involves letting in foreigners? Now we know: "foreigners are evil" wins out. That's more important to him than creating jobs.
Which tells you that when he uses jobs to justify keeping out foreigners, he's probably just being a hypocrite. Not that that's a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is quoting the first three paragraphs of the linked article. Anything you see wrong in it is the fault of the author of the article, not the /. editor who posted the quote as-is (which is the proper way to quote something).
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly none of that changes the fact that the summary and title are taken directly from the linked article. mssmash did not write any of it. Any fault in the article lies with the author of the article, not the /. editor who quoted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the title do you feel is inaccurate?
The rule, which would have gone into effect on the 17th, is delayed until March. During the delay, the Trump administration is expected to propose rescinding it, but they haven't submitted that proposal yet. The title, which is the title of the linked article, summarizes the situation properly. Why would they change it?
The part of the article that mentions people losing visas is inaccurate because nobody has gotten a visa under a rule that isn't in effect,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:Excuses (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
if thats "so little" i would really hate to be where you are
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if someone is self-employed, they have additional self-employment taxes.
Yes, because God knows, we certainly don't need people encouraged to work for themselves! Then the government wouldn't be able to take what it wants from your paycheck before you get it and know to the penny how much money you have! Oh, the horror!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
They do that because, for W-2 employees, your employer is paying part of those taxes for you (specifically, half of your FICA taxes, plus payroll taxes too). When you're self-employed, you don't have an employer chipping that stuff in, so you have to pay it yourself.
If you don't like it, you should lobby the government to take the entire FICA deduction out of your paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
i was including ALL taxes minus sales
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry though, the Union over there is going to have its federalization moment as well. What will they be saying when the Union is also spending as much as all their "Countries" combined.
Re: (Score:2)
Limit the Federal budget to military, courts, enforcement agencies and little else.
Let the states pay for roads, HUD, welfare etc...
(Social Security is YOUR money which is beneficently invested for you by the all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring Federal government.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly.. It's my money which is being taken by the government to give out to current retirees. Like a big Ponzi scheme.
(Now, I could possibly be convinced that a 'mandatory 401k', at the same rate as Social Security taxes, but kept entirely in each person's account, would be reasonable.. since apparently many people are not smart enough to do a 401k on their own.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for supporting my point. Although I guess you did not mean to...
Re: (Score:2)
If it was worth doing, a president would enact such measures much earlier that a week before leaving office.