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

71–80 of 121 posts

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#71

Post by bsder »

lend000 wrote: post #58
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?

Same with hedge funds. Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds (and get richer). I love how the government asserts that it knows what's best for me and protects me from myself. Such a free nation we live in.

> Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds

Having dealt with this situation recently, I'm a little more sympathetic to the government's position.

Most investors are dumb. Really dumb. No, dumber than that.

It's really easy for a con man to set up shop. It takes forever to get him shut down, and the scammed will fight you.

Scammed investors will defend the scammer even when you present them with incontrovertible proof. You can stand in court and have a judge hand down rulings of the level of "worst case I have seen" and they will STILL defend him.

Preventing these kinds of "investors" from even getting into the game is really the only way to keep it under control.

Trump being elected was hardly a surprise to me given my recent experiences with dumb investors.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#73

Post by mark_edward »

user837387 wrote: post #28
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.

So why is it so bad to have rich people relocate to your country?

Considering the enormous benefits of moving to the US for most of the people in the world, I don't really like the idea of it being easier for the rich rather than the poor to migrate when they're already rich. For a lot of people, crossing a border and doing the exact same job can easily 5-10x real income. It's what my dad did. What I would like is a preferential option for the poor in migration policies. The positive aggregate effects of migration are well known as generally positive according to mainstream economic analysis, but the social problem is that, similar to free trade, it's a policy that creates very very invisible gains (largely unnoticeable as an individual things like marginally lower prices, marginally higher productivity) but with extremely concentrated and visible harm. The family trade is carpentry and I grew up working in it and viscerally saw being undercut by contractors using undocumented labor, so i know it's real. I just think migration doesn't have to be structured this way.

I don't have even the vaguest idea of policy in this (although I'm sure there's some research I can read up on), but I think something can be done, whether via some kind of redistribution scheme, regulation, etc. to attempt to mitigate these effects by redistributing aggregate gains to those hurt hard. I watched many people develop virulent xenophobia and racism because of the issues of undocumented labor and improperly managed migration. I wish in addition to free trade treaties we could have free movement treaties without having to form some pseudo federation like the EU.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#74

Post by whack »

_delirium wrote: post #70
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?

This kind of rule (Canada was floating a similar one) is usually added in an attempt to keep visa-sellers out of the market, i.e. outfits who will agree to fake "invest" money in your fake "startup" in return for an under-the-table fee. By limiting the people who can count as investors to those who have a track record of actually investing in startups, the hope is that this kind of fraud will be at least less frequen…

The EB5 program already exists which allows people to buy permanent residency. Anyone who wants to "buy a visa" can just do that with the full blessing of the government.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#75

Post by oh_sigh »

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?

Without it, you would have people just buying their way into 6+ years in the country.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#76

Post by fovc »

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…

What exactly does parole mean in an immigration context? Would it threaten future visa/immigration options if you fail to renew?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#77

Post by _delirium »

whack wrote: post #74
_delirium wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of rule (Canada was floating a similar one) is usually added in an attempt to keep visa-sellers out of the market, i.e. outfits who will agree to fake "invest" money in your fake "startup" in return for an under-the-table fee. By limiting the people who can count as investors to those who have a track record of actually investing in startups, the hope is that this kind of fraud will be at least less frequen…

The EB5 program already exists which allows people to buy permanent residency. Anyone who wants to "buy a visa" can just do that with the full blessing of the government.

That requires quite a bit more money, at least $500,000. Yeah, people who have that kind of money can already buy a visa. But a visa-reselling scheme here could be much cheaper, targeting people who want to buy a visa for, say, $30,000. The fraudulent investor would structure their investment so they don't actually part with the purported investment money (depending on what checks are done, there are various ways to either hang on to the money or round-trip it), and just charges a fee for agreeing to pretend to invest and temporarily fronting the required investment money.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#78

Post by neom »

fovc wrote: post #76
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…

What exactly does parole mean in an immigration context? Would it threaten future visa/immigration options if you fail to renew?

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2017-00481/p-389

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#79

Post by mysterypie »

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.

A humorous way to express the same idea is that the non-rich are actually sponging off the rich:

"The average American household of 2.64 people receives almost $13,000 worth of federal benefits, services, and protection per annum. These people would have to have a family income of $53,700 to pay as much in taxes as they get in goodies... Only 4.8 percent of the population -- 12,228,000 people -- file income tax returns showing more than $50,000 in adjusted gross income. Ninety-five percent of Americans are on the mooch." -- P. J. O'Rourke [1]

[1] https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1555847153

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#80

Post by mysterypie »

fapjacks wrote: post #40
gigatexal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar scheme works for Canadian immigration.

But... Does it work ?

Typical case went like this: Immigrant investor to Canada spent $300K (Canadian) to buy a pizza joint, hired 5 minimum wage workers, operated business for 3.5 years, then sold it or closed it. Minimum investments and required duration of the business have varied over the years, and by province as well.

The typical immigrant investor was not starting Google, a genomics lab, a 3D printing business, or anything even vaguely innovative.

Post reply on HN