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

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#81

Post by daodedickinson »

bsder wrote: post #71
lend000 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Imagine if we were forced to live in a system where we had to choose between two people like that!

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#82

Post by lend000 »

bsder wrote: post #71
lend000 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds like a problem with a different part of the system (too many legal protections to effectively shut down ponzi schemes/cons/etc.). In general, I've never heard a compelling argument that the government should pass laws that limit people's freedoms, solely for the purpose of potentially defending people from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#83

Post by icebraining »

geodel wrote: post #61
clishem wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many other countries, such as the Netherlands, have a similar law: http://www.dutchdailynews.com/netherlands-offers-residency-t...

Interesting. It seems equivalent of USD 1.3M. I wonder if it is competitive for investors.

Portugal has a similar system, called "Golden Visas", which is significantly cheaper. Of course, being true to this country, there's already a five year backlog due to bureaucracy and investigations into misappropriations and fraud.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#84

Post by adharmad »

bsder wrote: post #71
lend000 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Won't such people find other ways of getting in trouble or losing their money? How many such avenues can the government block?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#85

Post by vostok »

8ytecoder wrote: post #69
lend000 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What bothers me more is the restriction on investing in IPOs.

Isn't the restriction on investing in IPOs imposed by banks and not the government? You're just not going to get an allocation if you're not a "good customer".

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#86

Post by spiralpolitik »

uiri wrote: post #54
goodcjw2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

especially when compared the the new H1B threshold at 100K What on Earth are you talking about? That $100K threshold is designed to target body shops. There are a class of employers which are H-1B dependent; generally, those with at least 15% of their employees on the visa. Currently, H-1Bs with a salary of at least $60K are not counted toward that 15%. The bill will change this to $100K salary. It is possible to hir…

The 100k threshold will do nothing for body shops. They will structure it so that on paper every employee makes the required amount to keep the DOL/DHS happy while clawing it back from the employee through "fees", "charges", and other underhanded tactics.

They've always done this and always will.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#87

Post by Finbarr »

_delirium wrote: post #77
whack wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All you get for your money is parole though -- not a visa. You couldn't work for other companies or stay indefinitely without getting another type of visa.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#88

Post by nopinsight »

mysterypie wrote: post #80
fapjacks wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vag…

What happens to them afterward? Do they get a permanent residency just from operating that venture for 3.5 years?

(Do they need to pass the point-based qualification as well to get the visa in the first place?)

For the US, small business investor-entrepreneurs typically use an E-2 visa but it is non-immigrant and they need to leave the country when the business stops operating.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#89

Post by Finbarr »

ricardonunez wrote: post #72
throw345hn wrote: post #67

Does anyone know if you could apply for permanent residency while on this visa?

No, you can't. This is not a visa.

You can apply for any kinds of visa you want while taking advantage of the parole according to the linked article. You would need to leave the US to change status though.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#90

Post by gcb0 »

everyone should remember this is the port of entry body. allowing them to decide in case of urgency makes sense fully.

entrepreneurs already can request a visa in their home country usa embassy.

why the people validating documents at the airport should now decide on startups sounds crazy at least.

Post reply on HN