17 ms·
In Blow to Tech Industry, Trump Shelves Startup Immigrant Rule
- elmar 9y agohow it's possible that Trump an entrepreneur inself doesn't see the stupidity of killing this "Startup Visa" I am speechless.
- empath75 9y agoWell, for one, he's not that kind of entrepreneur. He made his fortune by starting off extremely wealthy, and then expanded it by defrauding people and going deeply into debt, rather than producing anything of value.
- lostboys67 9y agoHe's a property developer which is very different to the average sv start-up and property development is lot more dodgy - and I am not just talking about Donald some of the stuff that came out in the candy brothers trial in the uk is quite shocking
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- s_kilk 9y agoTrump inherited his fortune, not exactly a bootstrapped entrepreneur.
- sogen 9y agoInherited fortune made by an immigrant.
- fsagadhadffsh 9y agoSource for your claim?
- SyneRyder 9y agoThe famous quote from Trump himself is "My father gave me a small loan of $1 Million dollars" (around 0:40 in this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXEOFHf1q9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXEOFHf1q9A On the other hand, that's less than the investment funding I've seen to some folks on HN, and it's the same amount of capital that would be required if you wanted to open a McDonald's store [1]. But I think a majority of people would regard that as starting from a wealthy position, and certainly not bootstrapping anyway. [1] https://www.franchisehelp.com/franchises/mcdonalds/ https://www.franchisehelp.com/franchises/mcdonalds/
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mercurysmessage 9y agoDon't forget that $1 Million at that point in time is different than $1 Million now.
- SyneRyder 9y agoGood point. As far as I can tell the loan must have been around 1968 - 1971, and this inflation calculator [1] puts that at $7 Million in today's money. [1] http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
- heliumcraft 9y agoHis Father/Family had a net worth of $250M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump It's estimated he Inherited $40M http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-donald-trump-inherit-100-million/ http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-do... Trump himself claims he started off with "a small loan of 1 million dollars" https://youtu.be/mkKBXJRySFw?t=20s https://youtu.be/mkKBXJRySFw?t=20s
- xxSparkleSxx 9y agoHe's an inherit lots of money and talk about how awesome I am entrepreneur, I'm sure people like that will still be able to buy their way into the US. So half of SV should still be safe.
- gdulli 9y agoTrump inherited his money and if he'd never started a business but invested it conservatively in index funds instead he'd have significantly more money than he does now.
- 0xbear 9y agoBy the time Trump inherited his money he was already very wealthy. See when he started in business and when his father died.
- corporateslave2 9y agoClearly you dont understand that people with 300 Million dont just put it into the market. That's why the whole Hedge Fund/Private Wealth Management industry exists. This argument is so far from reality.
- jpetso 9y agoWell, why don't they? Is the market not large enough to take 300 million invested via ETFs? Is it factually incorrect that if Trump had invested in the market, he would have made more money than he did actively managing it? More importantly, if I have the choice between roughly equivalent outcomes where one consists of decades of busywork and the other consists of taking a small part of the money and doing good in the world, why in the world would I want to be building a real estate empire? Of course, for Trump the reason would be because he's a narcissist who needs to see his sense of self-worth boosted by seeing his name slapped onto buildings in giant letters and his face in the news. But for someone who wants to merely lead a good life? You take out however much you need to actually make a positive impact, and leave the rest in index funds. That said, I'm not rich so I don't understand the system and why things need to be the way you describe. Please provide some insight.
- xutopia 9y agoThis will help Canadian startups a lot.
- EduardoBautista 9y agoEven before this rule, they weren’t exactly competitive with the US. I don’t see how this time will be any different.
- drpgq 9y agoYeah this whole Trump thing is good for the Canadian tech sector is something that sounds plausible, but I don't think it changes much. Canada already has a lot of immigration of tech workers. Although to be fair I had never heard of that Soti company until yesterday on Hacker News, so who knows.
- popopobobobo 9y agoBut I don't think anyone is willing to go to Canada considering the huge salary gap. I got Canadian developer friends who is making half of what I am making in US by sheer number besides the currency exchange rate.
- timtosi 9y agoI don't know where you live in the USA so I cannot really judge but I think you should also take in consideration the cost of life in USA and Canada. It's not only about how much you make but about how much you spend.
- djb_hackernews 9y agoThe rules of this startup visa never made any sense. They basically ensured that very few potential immigrant founders would qualify and the ones that did were in a place where they probably didn't see the value in that path as opposed to other business related visas.
- deepGem 9y agoWell yes and no. On one hand, if you secure a 250K funding this is a good option to get inside the US. On the other, if your startup fails for whatsoever reason, you have to head back, can't work anywhere else.
- pkaye 9y agoThat is why it is called a startup visa. We expect them to have enough financial backing to start a business.
- jasode 9y ago>The rules of this startup visa never made any sense. Can you elaborate specifically on the rules of the USA startup visa that didn't make sense? For comparison and discussion, you can look at other countries' startup visa programs [1] like Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, etc. Basically, the idea is to craft the visa rules such that the barriers are high enough that it allows legitimate foreign entrepreneurs with real business prospects to filter through. On the other hand, if you make the criteria "too easy", it becomes a "back door visa" for non-productive foreigners to abuse. It's a balance between those two outcomes. Did any other country tune their visa policy correctly? If so, what did USA specifically get wrong and what did the other countries get right? [1] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-entrepreneurs-how-countries-are-seeking-out-immigrant-job-creators http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-entrepreneurs-h...
- bargl 9y agoI wish I could remember where I saw the video (a guy with a bunch of gumballs representing population), but I remember he spoke about how the visa process is really beneficial for the USA but bad for other countries. The point being that we drain their talent pool while increasing our own. The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within their own infrastructure. Instead the USA benefits in that we don't have to have the smartest people just the most attractive place for them to come and help our country. So while I disagree with his message behind this move, I think he inadvertently helped the rest of the world...
- baitbiter 9y agoAlmost everything that Trump does is good for the rest of the world. This one will help other countries to innovate which is good.
- idlewords 9y agoThe startup visa is a bad idea (it makes immigration status conditional on funding, which adds perverse incentives to an already dysfunctional funding culture), but the fact that the tech industry can't even get small concessions like this from Trump vitiates the argument that it's worth attending very public meetings with him.
- malchow 9y agoIs it a "blow" if the policy was never actually in effect?
- markbnj 9y agoWhy is it not? For example, people might have been making plans based on the expectation that it would be in effect.
- pbreit 9y agoBecause the program has never existed in the entire US history. For all we know it could have made things worse.
- burkaman 9y agoIf one company tries to acquire another but the purchase is blocked by the government, would you consider that a blow to either company?
- thehardsphere 9y agoYes.
- burkaman 9y agoEven though we can't know what the result would have been? Many mergers and acquisitions turn out to be huge mistakes.
- thehardsphere 9y agoThe government stopping an entirely consensual act between two people or organizations is a blow to those people, because they aren't being allowed to do whatever it is that they otherwise wanted. Whether it would have been a mistake or not is their problem and part of doing business. You wouldn't use this same logic for actual people, would you? Two people may have sexual intercourse; many acts of intercourse lead to unwanted pregnancy and AIDS, so we should deem these people "unharmed" if the government denies them the opportunity to have sex?
- threepipeproblm 9y agoI believe this hurts some clients of mine, who were looking at it as a possible answer. They have been spending significant $$$ in the US economy, developing a product that it's unlikely any domestic firm could, and struggling to find a way to stay here so that they have access to American talent. They are currently here on a importer's license or something, which makes it illegal for them to visit their home country. While I don't want to be taken for one who is just losing their mind over Trump (since they have all typically seemed pretty lame to me), xenophobia is actively harmful to US economic interests.
- tajen 9y agoOn the upside, there's a little good among this crappy situation: It may participate in rebalancing smart people in other countries, which may help other economies have a rebound. It's not all bright either because a smart person has less impact in an less developed economy.
- atomicUpdate 9y ago> developing a product that it's unlikely any domestic firm could, and struggling to find a way to stay here so that they have access to American talent. How do those two statements not contradict each other? It sounds like "developing a product that it's unlikely any domestic firm could" should really be "developing a product that domestic firms are not interested in" if the talent required to build it is also American.
- threepipeproblm 9y agoGood question, simple answer: They have domain knowledge that is basically impossible (or very unlikely) for foreigners to their home country to have. But they have a preference for American talent to build their product, partly because they feel the supply of good programmers is better here (a sentiment I am probably oversimplifying, i.e. maybe they have a complex notion of value. The point is they want to start up here.) This is to the best of my understanding. They have made some explanatory statements to me, but usually we are working. And they are very polite, not feeling it is really on them to criticize. I know they have used a large number of freelancers in my area, for various tasks. While this story may not be stereotypical, everyone has their own story and our current immigration policy seems to limit entrepreneurs in many unexpected ways.
- bitL 9y agoAlright, so I have companies in the US (Delaware/Nevada), never resided in the US and if needed I could go with one of those E visas given I pay $100-500k indirectly for the privilege. I am still able to visit US 2x year for 3 months at a time. What's all the fuss about?
- aaronchall 9y agoI don't understand why we would want to restrict legitimate business travel. Thank you for some perspective. I have questions now. How do you indirectly pay $100k-$500k for the privilege of an E-visa? What are the ostensibly direct purposes for spending those funds? Would you make the same expenditures if you couldn't travel to the US?
- pm90 9y agoWhat is your country of origin? That determines how much shit you get at the border and your likelihood of getting visas.
- bitL 9y agoEU, no issues with ESTA. OK, if I were from Russia or some 3rd world country then I might be in troubles, you're right.
- hildaman 9y agoThe US skills based immigration system is based on bringing in indentured labor to enrich corporations. L-1 visa holders _cannot_ change jobs. H-1B visa holders have to go through an expensive and cumbersome process to change jobs which effectively restricts their job mobility. Obviously, outside super-hot job markets like silicon valley, US workers have a hard time competing with indentured labor. This visa would have created brand new class of "entrepreneur" indentured to deep-pocketed VC firms. They would actually be worse off than H-1B and L-1 workers because - not only would they be beholden to the VC firms for funding (thereby their jobs) in the United States - but they would have to part with their ideas. No nativist here - just saying how things are working on the ground once you shave off the corporate propaganda.
- FilterSweep 9y agoI would agree, considering the horrifying Disney story where employees were given an option to train their cheaper replacements in their severance[0] However, this current repeal, related to "The International Entrepreneur Rule"[1] is only tangentially related to H1-B. H1-B could have gotten minimized but this is a bit worse, IMO. I have a major criticism of this article and it's not clarifying. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff...
- projectramo 9y agoI think you need to explain why you think an entrepreneur is "indentured" to a VC. The entrepreneur has a lot more leeway in making decisions than an employee, and has more freedom in how to spend the company's money. Do you think that a VC would choose a foreign entrepreneur just because they are foreign? Don't you think other factors (product, team, strategy etc) would play a larger role?
- trendia 9y agoYou're missing their point. Suppose you are an engineer in India making $10k / year. You have the same skills and ability as American citizens in San Francisco. So, a startup comes to you and offers you a $60k / year job. You take it, because you can make 6 times as much as you did in India! However, when you get to the US, you realize that American citizens make $80k - $100k / year for the same job. What do you do? You can't switch jobs, because the H1B program makes it very difficult to do so. You can't threaten to quit, because then your visa only gives you a few months before you have to go back to India -- and back to the $10k / year job. You have no choice -- if you want the $60k / year job, you have to to stick with the company who hired you. So you stay. The result? The salary for software engineers is driven down. The employer gets extra profits while getting the same work. The software engineers are now making less than they would be if either 1) the H1B program didn't exist, or 2) the H1B program were reformed so that switching jobs is easier. (Trump did #1. However, #2, reforming H1B, is far better for all employees in the long run. Not surprisingly, #2 is not hugely supported by all companies).
- pbreit 9y agoNot sure how it's that much of a "blow" since the program hasn't even started yet.
- tbking 9y agoI see it more as a blow to tech industry in U.S. Especially when most other countries like Canada are opening up to skilled workers
- dreamdu5t 9y agoShelved? It was never proposed. It was just another empty promise by our lying and incompetent president that for some reason NY Times still treats with respect.
- SmokyBourbon 9y agoLet's be honest here. The proposed rule was more about allowing bringing people into the US through startups than it was about bringing startups into the US through immigration.
- kasey_junk 9y agoThe bigger issue here is that it shows that the tech leaders that have been "working within the system" do not have very much sway over the Trump administration, as this was the only concession they were able to get from him. Thats the bigger blow than this specific rule.
- idlewords 9y agoYes, this is strong evidence that having the President's ear counts for nothing. They are attending these meetings at a high cost to their reputation and getting nothing in return.
- ethanhunt_ 9y agoThese meetings should not have any cost to their reputation and for the most part they don't. No matter what you think of the President, it is unquestionably good for America for our savvy CEOs to be advising him. People trying to punish the CEOs who advise him are harmful to our country, and worse than the politicians that make decisions to further their own careers instead of do what's best for their country/state/county.
- vinhboy 9y agoDisagree. When the president is a racist, misogynistic, con-man, you must take a stance against him. It's not ok to just stand by while he spews his hateful rhetoric. And to OP's point. You should at least recognize when your attempt to work with him yields no results, and stop. Just like how Elon did.
- s73ver 9y agoI disagree. Doing that legitimizes this president and their actions, which is something that plain should not be happening. Not to mention that it was clear from the start that Trump was never going to listen to them anyway. Just about everyone on that board said no to the Muslim ban. He did it anyway.
- 9y ago
- brudgers 9y agoBased on the description of the rule in the article, the emphasis is on fundraising rather than producing jobs or value. The thresholds of $250k and $100k remind me of Dr. Evil's $1 million. It's just not enough of a bar to separate friends and family funds from legitimate business rationales. Edit: In response to comments, currently $100k and $250k are not uncommon amounts for a person to incur attending university in the US. Solo operational costs in The Bay can swallow much of either in a year without hiring anyone or building anything...but in fairness either is a lot of money for most people if its yours and not very much if it is someone else's.
- mercurysmessage 9y agoWhat? $250k is a lot of money. I know very very few, if any, people that could just shell out that kind of money in any situation.
- 12tmp 9y ago250k is nothing for millions of people. There also millions of people for whome 1000 dollars is a lot of money and that don't know anyone rich enough to shell out that kind of money.
- davidw 9y agoMost visas outside of family ones have lots of Magic Numbers, like 60K H1-B's or whatever it is. Not 70K, not 50K, but 60K!
- the_common_man 9y agoWell. 60 seconds, 60 minutes..
- chasely 9y ago>It's just not enough of a bar to separate friends and family funds from legitimate business rationales. Apparently I need to find some better friends and family...
- goodroot 9y agoThis is wonderful for Canada. Vancouver tech has already seen a nice bump from the American political hostility towards immigrants.
- diego_moita 9y agoEven Edmonton (a.k.a. Deadmonton) is getting some attention; DeepMind will open a branch in here and EMC2 will expand their offices. It seems Trump is turning out to be a good Canadian president, so far.
- pyroinferno 9y agoRich Chinese immigrants are fueling Vancouver's housing bubble. Good luck with that.
- chrshawkes 9y agoBS, Canada has continued to struggle with a brain drain problem where tech workers can easily cross the border and earn 40 to 50k more per year. The economy has been doing well under Trump and I suspect with decisions such as this, we'll continue to see a rise in American prosperity. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-tech-braindrain-idUSKBN1592O2 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-tech-braindrain-idU...
- refurb 9y agoRather, those willing to work for far lower wages than in the US.
- kareemsabri 9y agoSo how do YC companies with foreign founders live in the US? I know a few Canadian ones that do.
- geebee 9y agoI can't say I'm tremendously enthusiastic about this visa. My objection to it is the same as my objection to almost all specialized, employer sponsored visas - I don't think employers, universities, or investors should be empowered to decide who is allowed to live in the US. If you grant them this power, they will abuse it. Think about it this way - you're a startup founder with US citizenship. You go to an investor who offers you 100K in seed funding in exchange for X% of your business. You say no deal. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you my money. Now imagine you don't have citizenship. Same scenario. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you the right to live in the United States. One point I've emphasized over and over here on HN is that you can be very pro-immigration and still be very opposed to programs that put private citizens (employers, investors) or corporations in a position of government sanctioned power over would-be immigrants. I think employers and investors should be allowed to decide who gets a job or money, but the power ends there. They absolutely should not be empowered to run the US immigration system for their personal benefit. These visas are often described as "allows foreign engineers/entrepreneurs/etc to live in the US." That's misleading. It should be described as "allows corporations and investors to decide who is and isn't allowed to live in the US." So, the tech industry is in favor of a regulatory regime that allows tech corporations to be gatekeepers for who is and isn't allowed to immigrate? What a surprise. Think of it this way - I can accept that google is allowed to no-hire someone who contributed to open source but can't reverse a binary tree on the spot at a whiteboard. Google's call. But should google be making decisions about who is allowed to live in the US based on these interviews? That changes the question dramatically for me.
- 31reasons 9y agoHmm so you don't want Corporations to decide who is allowed or not allowed in the US but you want them to decide who can have a Healthcare or not so they can live or die?
- TheGirondin 9y agoI trust the government even less. Charlie Gard is a good example - the UK government has not only decided that he should die, but that his parents are barred from bringing him to another country for treatment. On top that, the UK is saying that he has to die at the hospital and that his parents can't bring him home on hospice.
- geff82 9y agoBerlin will have a place for you ;) ! Honestly, just another bad news from a country that now began to close its doors to be happy alone. Instead of embracing change and new people, it now makes it extremely difficult for anyone to legally come in. The American Culture became not so wide spreaded because of its interesting closedness, but because it gave many, many people a chance and because it incorporated cultures into this enormous melting pot. I think conservative Americans have not yet realized to what extent the current Administration destroys the glorious brand the country once was. Last time I checked the USA on google maps, there were large areas of empty land that could be the home of a hundred million more without disturbing anyone. At least the acre of Texas prarie that we own is a very lonely space to camp on...
- geebee 9y agoThe US does currently take over 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year. Certainly, a reasonable person could argue that number should be higher, but that's still a pretty high number for a country that is "closing its doors".
- chrshawkes 9y agoOur schools and infrastructure are crumbling. Taking in more poor immigrants does nothing to address this problem, only makes it worse. Some of the golden European countries are very closed off from the outside world and their solutions are not an apples to apples comparison with that of the USA, which is already the third most populated country in the world.
- geff82 9y agoHonestly, don't call me or any of the people I know that would come "poor" one more time. Including me, we have good savings, earn 6 figures, have good education (not necessarily University, which does not matter that much here in Germany). We are all quite entrepreneurial spirited, yet do not fall in the category "ultrarich". We probably would earn and contribute quite well to the US society. Yet we do not fit in any visa category. So also because of the unwelcoming visa policy and complicated process, my wife and I will now stay here in Germany, currently are in the process of buying a house and just signed the contract for our first employee (onshore, besides 2 offshore). We used to be big USA fanboys, but it is just very difficult to get there. Also my wife is Iranian, which does not ease things.
- ajsharp 9y agoMediocre US-born programmers, rejoice!
- luckydata 9y agoI'm no fan of Donald Trump but this "buy your own visa" scheme always left me very perplexed. I was trying to figure out who would benefit from it, and aside a few wealthy, mostly Asian citizens, I couldn't see the reason for it. I'm glad it's dead. p.s.: Before you call me xenophobe keep in mind I'm a foreign born US citizen, I immigrated through the normal procedures.
- pointoutxeno 9y agoYou are an Italian [1], which thanks to its membership to EU and how US green cards are allocated significantly benefits from the current status quo unlike say Chinese/Indians/Mexicans. So please don't pretend as if you went through any hardship or discount your race privilege. Oh and xenophobia against Asians who are rich is also xenophobia. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12491395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12491395
- jshevek 9y agoThe parents statement is literally correct. You seem, to me, to be assuming motive and wrongly accusing the parent.
- sumedh 9y agoThe reason Chinese/Indians have huge delays is because of the sheer numbers who apply for green card. What does race have to do with it. The OP might be an Indian Italian.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y agoSo the rule was delayed by "Homeland Security"... Does this mean that they are protecting us from terrorists? Because I would have thought the protecting American jobs argument was stronger.
- bharadwajk 9y agoFk it, lets move to china
- jrs95 9y agoIf that were a migration that really happened it would be extremely ironic. Progressives, infuriated with the racism and sexism in Trump's America, move to China. Only to discover that China is even more racist and sexist!
- chrshawkes 9y agoI don't see how allowing somebody overseas to come to the USA to create a company for 2 to 5 years while attracting hundreds of thousands in American dollars, to only be sent back to their country after the Visa expires (5 years) is a good idea? How does it benefit the USA to build foreign companies with United States dollars so they can empower their own country and their own people, while middle and lower class Americans continue to grasp at the scraps? I think I side with Trump on this one.
- jpetso 9y agoIf they're coming to the US and take American VC money, most of them will be building an American company, not a foreign one. Led by a foreigner, yes. But hiring a good bunch of local people if the company ends up successful. The while company won't be just relocating at the end of the visa term, because it's built with people who want to continue working in America. Or at least that's the idea of a visa like this. I can't say I understand the system enough to tell if it would, in fact, work as planned.
- bharadwajk 9y agoWe need a parallel world without borders. A way businesses can operate without govts meddling. Ethereum? Bitcoin? VR?
- hellobharadwaj 9y agolets do it
- pikzen 9y agoYour president is a mysoginistic, racist, bigoted, dangerous person, but as long as it benefits your precious economy, you're fine with it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dang 9y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14746533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14746533 and marked it off-topic.
- pikzen 9y agoSweet! It's taken you some time. If you had the ability to entirely delete this account, too, that'd be nice.
- dmode 9y agoA lot of people are complaining about the original rule itself, but as someone who deals with US immigration laws everyday, I can tell you why it is. Immigration law is defined by Congress and there are very clear legislation on how immigrants can be granted visas and citizens. Given that, the executive branch has very little room to maneuver to visa rules. Thus the startup visa rules were written in a way to stay within the context of the original Congressional intent of creating EB visa. Otherwise, it will get challenged in court (which every new visa ruled does, including the H4 visa EAD). I was hoping that with Congressional majorities, Trump can actually create a legal start-up visa akin to what we have in other countries. But I guess that won't happen anymore