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

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#101

Post by nopinsight »

deepGem wrote: post #99
nopinsight wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know how the process is supposed to work once one gets the Parole? Would the Parole allow one to travel freely in and out of the States, like a Green Card holder, during the its valid period? E-2 visa for some nationals requires the person to reapply for the visa if one travels outside the US and wants to get back in, which is a major pain point. (There is a period, for example 6 months or 1 year, when th…

I read through the rules and couldn't find any mention. Which means it's safe to assume that you can travel freely in and out of US within the parole period. All Visas to the US are mostly multiple entry Visas unless otherwise stated. Probably this parole is similar.

That is quite reassuring. Thank you! :)

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#102

Post by throwaway5752 »

vostok wrote: post #85
8ytecoder wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yeah, that is 100% the result of the private financial system (investment banks). Remember when Google did the open dutch auction format and what a big deal that was for cutting them out?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#103

Post by lend000 »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #93
lend000 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. No one person wants to be constrained, but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society. Especially when they are well-known cognitive exploits that work on people despite their own stated preferences.

> Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc.

So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. Let's punish victims. Seems pretty backwards to me, even though your goal is to be proactive. Might as well outlaw suicide while we're at it.

> but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society

An example might be good here to back up a pretty questionable claim.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#104

Post by emilyfm »

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…

That was the "investor" visa ("owner-operator").

The US International Entrepreneur Rule is more like the "Start Up Visa" [1] that was introduced in Canada a few years ago, which allows entry for founders of a business supported by local venture capital or incubators (subject to certain monetary amounts and conditions).

A major difference: the Canadian start-up visa gives immediate permanent residence, rather than a number of years of temporary status with no guaranteed route forward.

[1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#105

Post by sanderjd »

lend000 wrote: post #103
JabavuAdams wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. No one person wants to be constrained, but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society. Especially when they are well-known cognitive exploits that work on people despite their own stated preferences.

> Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. Let's punish victims. Seems pretty backwards to me, even though your goal is to be proactive. Might as well outlaw suicide while we're at it. > but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society An example might be good here to back up a…

> So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned.

That really isn't what they said...

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#106

Post by beagle3 »

chulk90 wrote: post #48
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.

That's true for simple saving and checking, but not true for just about anything else. Most importantly, retirement/pension accounts, which get preferential treatment (in the US they are IRAs and 401k) in one country but not another -- and the US PFIC rules make them much worse than "just" not getting the tax benefits.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#107

Post by bsder »

lend000 wrote: post #82
bsder wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> too many legal protections to effectively shut down ponzi schemes/cons/etc.

The problem is that the the person carrying out the scam is playing with "house money" while the ones trying to stop him are paying cash. He is paying lawyers with the money from the investors and burning up the assets. So, by the time you are done, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#108

Post by fovc »

neom wrote: post #78
fovc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks. That led me to:

> The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.

[0]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title8/html/USCODE...

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#109

Post by raquo »

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.

FWIW Canada beats US out of the water on this one.

You can immediately become Canadian permanent resident by merely LOANING the province of Quebec $800K for five years. At current interest rates your actual monetary loss would be ~$80K.

You don't even need any qualifications. You don't even need to live in Quebec afterwards, you're free to move anywhere.

Oh and you can become Canadian citizen after three years of living in Canada, although because Canada does not reliably track people at its borders you can just fake passport stamps and other stuff. Recent revelations showed that people have been doing that at massive scale.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#110

Post by JabavuAdams »

lend000 wrote: post #103
JabavuAdams wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. No one person wants to be constrained, but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society. Especially when they are well-known cognitive exploits that work on people despite their own stated preferences.

> Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. Let's punish victims. Seems pretty backwards to me, even though your goal is to be proactive. Might as well outlaw suicide while we're at it. > but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society An example might be good here to back up a…

I'm surprised that this was your take-away from my response.
Post reply on HN