The Entrepreneur's Corner
France Passes Copyright Law Demanding Royalties For Every Image Search Engines Index Online
Remember When Cracking Groups Said Denuvo Would End Game Piracy? Yeah, Didn't Happen
Kickstarter Projects That Don't Meet Their Goal Are Not 'Failures'; They Help People Avoid Failures
Administration Creates A Hack For A Entrepreneur's Immigration Visa
from the innovation-for-innovation dept
Fri, Aug 26th 2016 4:29pm — Mike Masnick
For many, many years we've talked about why the US should have an entrepreneur's visa to let in smart entrepreneurs who are able to build companies and create jobs in the US, rather than kicking out the very people who are helping to build out the US economy. However, because immigration is such a touchy issue, attempts to do so via Congress have gone nowhere. And while we've had some concerns about the actual implementation (in particular the focus on requiring the entrepreneurs to raise a fair amount of venture capital), the general concept is a good one.
Late on Friday, it appears that the White House effectively worked out a way to create a startup entrepreneur's visa on its own, without going through Congress. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a plan to expand the "parole" powers it already has to international entrepreneurs, allowing them to stay in the country while building a company:
The proposed rule would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use its existing discretionary statutory parole authority for entrepreneurs of startup entities whose stay in the United States would provide a significant public benefit through the substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation.
Homeland Security would review each request on a case-by-case basis, but would require the following rules:
Who have a significant ownership interest in the startup (at least 15 percent) and have an active and central role to its operations;
Whose startup was formed in the United States within the past three years; and
Whose startup has substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation, as evidenced by:
Receiving significant investment of capital (at least $345,000) from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments;
Receiving significant awards or grants (at least $100,000) from certain federal, state or local government entities; or
Partially satisfying one or both of the above criteria in addition to other reliable and compelling evidence of the startup entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
This does seem better than some of the earlier proposals, which included requirements after receiving the visa to have to raise upwards of $1 million from investors. We were worried that this would basically force entrepreneurs to take money from VCs when they might not otherwise need to. This parole system still has raising money as a criteria, but the amount is significantly lower and DHS also has the flexibility to still grant the parole without the investment if there is "other reliable and compelling evidence of the startup entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation."
It does still feel a bit arbitrary, but overall this is definitely a good step for entrepreneurship in the US.
FR-2016-20663-793250-OFR (PDF)
FR-2016-20663-793250-OFR (Text)
Filed Under: dhs, entrepreneur's visa, entrepreneurship, immigration, parole, startup visa
Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US
How Can The Startup Visa Be Improved Upon?
The SolarWinds Hack Is Just The Same Sort Of Espionage The US Government Engages In Every Day
Security Researcher Reveals Solarwinds' Update Server Was 'Secured' With The Password 'solarwinds123'
ICE Withdraws Demand For Journalists' Sources After Having Its Unconstitutional Demand Outed By BuzzFeed
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:51pm
This smacks of cronyism. "Yeah, you can stay, but only if you're sponsored by someone on this short list of people who all happen to be donors to my campaign. I'm sure you'll be able to work out a deal favorable to one of them."
Whose startup was formed in the United States within the past three years;
So they can stick around for 3 years building their business, and then we'll deport them? Is that really the plan?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:54pm
Possibly, though I doubt it. If that's how it came down, there would be a massive uproar.
The plan allows for much longer than that.
Anonymous, 28 Aug 2016 @ 7:42pm
The plan is to have them stay long enough to qualify as a "US Person" for taxation purposes, and then they can be taxed on their worldwide income for the rest of their lives (as can any children they have while in the US).
Only in Eritrea and the US...bastions of democratic virtuousness.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:56pm
Congress in action
" However, because immigration is such a touchy issue, attempts to do so via Congress have gone nowhere."
I came accross the following quote the other day, and have been waiting for a good excuse.
"...has failed to account for the fact that Congress, as currently constituted, couldn't provide a stool sample if it was locked in a cholera ward, but that''s the system we have."
The quote came from here, a FaultLines article by Noel Erinjeri
Re: Congress in action
Our immigration system has been a mess for a long time. Yet, back in 2008, when Obama had a Democratically controlled Congress, he and Congress did exactly zero to "fix" the problem. Now that the GOP runs Congress, it seems like people blame Congress for the problem, exclusively.
Obama had ample opportunity to address this issue for the first two years of his presidency, as did the Democratically controlled Congress. They choose to keep the system as it is. Why should anyone expect the GOP to change it now to suit the Democrats, especially since the Democrats squandered an opportunity to do so themselves?
Or maybe both sides just want an issue to blame the other about? Because both are just as guilty of inaction.
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 8:39am
Re: Re: Congress in action
Not only that, the Dems could have soaked the rich with taxes and they did absolutely zero. But they did make taxes a re-election issue and have not mentioned it since. Seems the dems are as rich as the repubs and aren't actually wanting to soak the rich. But the average Joe Dem doesn't see that.
Atkray (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:23pm
What is the saying about sounds too good to be true?
Plus anything that has homeland security attached to it is suspect from the get go.
TimeToDevNullThem, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:47pm
It says DHS on it...it's like HFCS in it.
This is a document, that on the day when I am tasked to restore the republic, will not be relevant, it will be nullified along with the ENTIRE ****ING DHS which is POISON for Freedom.
Interesting, but still a bad idea
This may be well-intentioned, but I am of the opinion that we already have far too much discretionary authority vested in the executive branch. I would much rather see a change in the law to provide the needed improvements, rather than an executive action based solely on discretionary reinterpretation of existing statutes.
Re: Interesting, but still a bad idea
It is a bad idea. Unfortunately it is the least bad option available. Obama has gone whole-hog on executive orders because congress has essentially abdicated their job. All those people who like to say that our government had gridlock constitutionally designed in (I used to be one of them) are seeing the result of that theory put to the test.
I don't see it getting any better for the forseeable future either.
Uhhh... Where to start with this...
Now immigration has rules?? Who knew?! Is it not already law that immigrants demonstrate they have means of support, yet we have majorities of immigrants from certain countries on benefits. The pro-increasing immigration side just wants to argue about what the exact percentage of immigrants on welfare is. The law says zero.
Shame a few thousand (handful?) of "immigrant entrepreneurs" (doesn't that actually describe attorneys that make a living shepherding all takers into the country?) have to obey some regs, but the more basic considerations, that are already established in law yet flaunted, are many times more influential on immigration policy, while at the same time being completely ignored.
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 27 Aug 2016 @ 5:22pm
I just can't wait for all the outrage. You know it's coming, now that Obama has opened the floodgates for ISIS terrorist mobster migrant rapist immigrants from Mexico.
The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There)
Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
The Ridiculousness Of Copyright Clearances: Fight Club Producers Had To Pay Off Marla Singer?
16:29 Administration Creates A Hack For A Entrepreneur's Immigration Visa (12)
11:01 Kickstarter Projects That Don't Meet Their Goal Are Not 'Failures'; They Help People Avoid Failures (42)
03:03 DC Seeks To 'Legalize' Uber... By Forcing It To Be Way More Expensive Than Cabs (47)
13:18 Real Scarcity Is An Important Part Of A Business Model; Artificial Scarcity Is A Terrible Business Model (69)
11:05 Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US (200)
00:09 The World Of Open Textbooks Just Became A Little More Crowded -- And A Little More Open (13)
16:05 Content As Advertising: Making Advertising An Easter Egg For People To Hunt Down (15)
15:24 'When Stuff Is Free, We�re More Likely to Buy' (48)
22:04 Entrepreneur Magazine's History Of Suing Entrepreneurs For Using The Word Entrepreneur Gets More Attention (15)
15:50 Being Someone Else's Bitch, Being Your Own Bitch... Or Making Others Your Bitch (29)