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

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#111

Post by Xixi »

nopinsight wrote: post #100
gotrecruit wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

about the E-2 thing you said, it's only true if you applied within the US. if you applied and got an E-2 outside of US, you can freely leave and enter on it anytime.

I talked with an immigration lawyer last year. She told me that the period of free re-entry was only within 6 months of the visa issuance. I did check and found a list of varying periods for different countries on some website (I can't find it now.) However, I just found this paragraph on www.uscis.gov: "An E-2 nonimmigrant who travels abroad may generally be granted an automatic two-year period of readmission when r…

I have an E-2 visa, valid for 5 years. The way it works is exactly as you read on www.uscis.gov: upon entry in the US there is a 2 year reentry permission: it is renewed each time the border is crossed. In practice it means that I need to go out of the US at least once every two years to keep the ability to travel freely. Conclusion: the E-2 visa is great if you intend to travel abroad often, otherwise another visa is probably better.

The durations may vary depending on the country the visa is issued from (due to the underlying treaty), and the status associated to it: in my case France as an essential employee (NOT as an investor).

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#112

Post by literallycancer »

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…

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

A civil war should be enough, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_civil_war_of_1997

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#113

Post by CPLX »

literallycancer wrote: post #112
lend000 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>An example might be good here to back up a pretty questionable claim. A civil war should be enough, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_civil_war_of_1997

Indeed. Preventing financial panics is one of the core purposes of modern government, the protestations of HN's resident Ayn Rand readership notwithstanding.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#114

Post by lend000 »

literallycancer wrote: post #112
lend000 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>An example might be good here to back up a pretty questionable claim. A civil war should be enough, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_civil_war_of_1997

> "and government officials endorsed a series of pyramid investment funds"

From your own article, sounds like the problem was corrupt government, not a government that protected and prosecuted fraud.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#115

Post by lend000 »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #110
lend000 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Perhaps this should not be a surprising takeaway.

I hear the same arguments all the time about protecting people from themselves. The argument typically goes "well it doesn't just affect you; your decisions could impact people who depend on you, so we'll add a 'protection' that may prevent you from harming yourself and your dependents." If it is acknowledged that it is indeed the decisions of the actor which affects his dependents, not the dangers of the world that may tempt the actor, and you want to protect his family from his own ineptitude through government force, then it sounds like you would have to make it illegal for that actor to make mistakes/get conned.

But of course, the whole 'protect people from themselves' argument is flawed long before that point, because it assumes that the government can and should try to create a world without risk. This is clearly impossible and subjective, and for the government to even come close, it would have to become so oppressive as to reduce freedoms to nothing. The same exact logic is used for keeping marijuana illegal, which I would speculate many of the dissidents on this thread do not support.

So in our current system, for example, we have rich people who get to use hedge funds (of which some very very low percentage turn out to be a Bernie Madoff-type of a scheme) and poor people who are protected from themselves and get to enjoy the Fed's ultra-low interest rates as inflation eats away at their savings. Clearly not a very good solution.

Maybe a better system would allow all people to use hedge funds, and instead we could focus on preventing/prosecuting fraud.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#116

Post by lend000 »

CPLX wrote: post #113
literallycancer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An example might be good here to back up a pretty questionable claim. A civil war should be enough, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_civil_war_of_1997

Indeed. Preventing financial panics is one of the core purposes of modern government, the protestations of HN's resident Ayn Rand readership notwithstanding.

How is that working out? Booms and busts are inherent to a market, but with Keynesian policies we extend the busts and inflate artificial booms (see: housing crisis), and we rack up more debt every time.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#117

Post by lend000 »

bsder wrote: post #107
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.

> 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.

How many hedge funds fall into this category of scammers? And with our protective legal framework, how come you still had to deal with a situation like this?

Not only do I dislike the freedom limitations in principle, but I've been giving everyone the benefit of the doubt that limiting freedoms will actually prevent the targeted type of scams. In reality, scammers will always find a way, criminals are not bound by laws, and we're still stuck with the inherent flaws of only giving the rich access to wealth-generating funds.

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#118

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

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

This is needlessly flame-baitey

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#119

Post by Chris2048 »

shagie wrote: post #94
robotresearcher wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data you link to shows that the top 5% income people pay 58.55% of all taxes, while the the top 50% pay 97.22%, as you indicated. So as a simple-language summary we might all agree that the rich pay a majority of the taxes, while the richer half of the country pays nearly all the taxes.

The richer half of the country _own_ 97.5% of the wealth. ( http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-in... ). It is hard to not pay nearly all of the taxes in that situation. Note that the "richer half" starts at the median income. For the US, the median income is about $52k. That isn't particularly wealthy. When the bar for "nearly all the wealth" is set at that point, it is not surprising at all.

Just 'wealth' take into account the value of the commons? Or just private resources?

Re: International Entrepreneur Rule

#120

Post by rudyrigot »

nopinsight wrote: post #101
deepGem wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! :)

I'm afraid the point of parole is that it can be decided at the border, at the entire discretion of the custom officers, without needing change in laws (hence why Obama is doing it this way). So, even if there was a guideline about this, you're getting zero guarantee that you will be admitted in next time.
Post reply on HN