Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

International Entrepreneur Rule

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#41

Post by icantdrive55 »

cma wrote: post #26
Finbarr wrote: post #2

Reading through it. The gist is you can get 30 months of parole from USCIS if you are a startup entrepreneur that has raised investment. Seems like the threshold is $250k and it can support up to 3 founders. You must own at least 10% to be considered a founder. Looks like you can also get an additional 30 months by raising a further $500k, or having at least $500k ARR with 20% annual growth, or employing 5 US persons…

One thing that will let you in is if you are invested in from > investors with established records of successful investments The rich get richer. Established investors get cheap labor, while upstart competitive investors get buried behind an artificial government wall. I wonder if any established investment firms lobbied for that?

I think they want to prevent foreign rich parents from scamming the program? They want honest entrepreneurs? Not just the rich kids, with crafty parents?

(Personally, I don't like these programs, except in extreme cases, like letting in accomplished scientists--for a limited time. And only from countries that reciprocate.)

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#42

Post by nikon »

Should you not be offered some sort of permanent residency in return for "growth and job creation that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States", especially after the first 30 months?

So you get 60 months and then have to leave the country? How is that attractive?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#43

Post by chrisper »

goodcjw2 wrote: post #23
Finbarr wrote: post #2

Reading through it. The gist is you can get 30 months of parole from USCIS if you are a startup entrepreneur that has raised investment. Seems like the threshold is $250k and it can support up to 3 founders. You must own at least 10% to be considered a founder. Looks like you can also get an additional 30 months by raising a further $500k, or having at least $500k ARR with 20% annual growth, or employing 5 US persons…

The threshold feels low, especially when compared the the new H1B threshold at 100K. As mentioned earlier, this could be easily gamed.

Is the 100k cap official or is it just an idea so far?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#44

Post by chulk90 »

cma wrote: post #26
Finbarr wrote: post #2

Reading through it. The gist is you can get 30 months of parole from USCIS if you are a startup entrepreneur that has raised investment. Seems like the threshold is $250k and it can support up to 3 founders. You must own at least 10% to be considered a founder. Looks like you can also get an additional 30 months by raising a further $500k, or having at least $500k ARR with 20% annual growth, or employing 5 US persons…

One thing that will let you in is if you are invested in from > investors with established records of successful investments The rich get richer. Established investors get cheap labor, while upstart competitive investors get buried behind an artificial government wall. I wonder if any established investment firms lobbied for that?

Don't you think you're making too much assumption here? If a large firm lobbied to create an "artificial ... wall," they would write a pre-defined amount, such as "firms who have $100MM AUM," rather than making it vague.

"Successful investments" can be validated with a reasonable argument, so it actually opens door for younger VCs.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#45

Post by shagie »

friedman23 wrote: post #24
imagist wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course we would want that, but that's not what we get. The rich pay few taxes and the international rich pay even less, given they already have offshore tax havens by the nature of being from another country. Given a green card allows establishment of US companies which are exempt from some tariffs which are imposed on foreign companies, there's no reason to believe that giving the rich green cards will be a net g…

> The rich pay few taxes and the international rich pay even less The rich pay almost all tax.

The chart depicted in xkcd https://xkcd.com/980/ doesn't seem to agree with this.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco... Shows the top 50% paying nearly all the taxes. That is a far cry from the rich.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#47

Post by cma »

chulk90 wrote: post #44
cma wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that will let you in is if you are invested in from > investors with established records of successful investments The rich get richer. Established investors get cheap labor, while upstart competitive investors get buried behind an artificial government wall. I wonder if any established investment firms lobbied for that?

Don't you think you're making too much assumption here? If a large firm lobbied to create an "artificial ... wall," they would write a pre-defined amount, such as "firms who have $100MM AUM," rather than making it vague. "Successful investments" can be validated with a reasonable argument, so it actually opens door for younger VCs.

Or maybe by making it vague they will get even more protection, especially if they have ins with the regulators who will interpret it. Seems more likely for established players than for upstarts.

But maybe not. Just throwing it out there.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#48

Post by chulk90 »

beagle3 wrote: post #31

Ok, that's the immigration side. What is the tax status of people admitted under this rule? IIRC, only F and J visas are exempt from becoming American taxpayers Being an American taxpayer is fine and dandy if you never plan to live outside the us again; but if you aren't, it's a very expensive and labour intensive deal; your home country bank will fire you as a customer because of FATCA, the reporting requirements to…

If you're moving to the U.S. to grow your young, early-stage startup for the next 5+ years, wouldn't it be easier if you moved your banking to a Silicon Valley / equivalent bank, who tends to be more startup-friendly and gives easier filing rules?

That's unless if you have more than 5 years of a banking relationship, but then you wouldn't qualify for this rule anyway.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#49

Post by orasis »

cma wrote: post #26
Finbarr wrote: post #2

Reading through it. The gist is you can get 30 months of parole from USCIS if you are a startup entrepreneur that has raised investment. Seems like the threshold is $250k and it can support up to 3 founders. You must own at least 10% to be considered a founder. Looks like you can also get an additional 30 months by raising a further $500k, or having at least $500k ARR with 20% annual growth, or employing 5 US persons…

One thing that will let you in is if you are invested in from > investors with established records of successful investments The rich get richer. Established investors get cheap labor, while upstart competitive investors get buried behind an artificial government wall. I wonder if any established investment firms lobbied for that?

So your investment thesis is "cheaper is better."?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#50

Post by emilyfm »

franciscop wrote: post #6
forgottenacc57 wrote: post #4

This will be gamed hard by rich people to get into the U.S. Essentially a red carpet side door if you have a slab of cash.

I am not native English speaker so I might be misreading, but isn't parole meant to be for people in prison? So how does this have anything to do with getting into the U.S.? There is already something like what you are suggesting in the U.S. AFAIK, just $500k or $1M depending on the situation.

Parole is a term used by immigration for cases where they use their own authority to let someone in when the law doesn't quite allow it.

For example in late 2000 the US government didn't get around to renewing the "visa waiver" law in time. Rather than suddenly requiring visas from everybody from the former visa waiver countries (and cause travel chaos), passports were stamped "PAROLED" for visa waiver people (mostly tourists) entering until the law was renewed. (I had a stamp like that in October 2000).

Post reply on HN