17 ms·
VCs are suing the US for delay of immigration program
- mankash666 9y agoRegardless of politics, this is one Visa category that's unequivocally beneficial the US. These entrepreneurs are creating jobs & pumping money into the economy
- megaman22 9y agoExactly. You really want to allow, nay, encourage, skilled immigration. Even better if they come with full pockets, and capital to start businesses.
- whathaschanged 9y agoIf they're creating jobs and then bemoaning the lack of developers and the need to import more foreign talent to fill those roles,then no,they aren't creating jobs.
- inlined 9y agoEven if this were true, the jobs they create are now subject to US taxes.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoI would like to see proof that these jobs could not be created by US citizens who don't need to be imported from other countries. Because you say you can't obtain the labor and skills locally doesn't not make its so. EDIT: @maxerickson (cause of those darn HN throttling limits) Because I want to see US citizens employed before importing labor for jobs that supposedly have no candidates in country, if we're building policy.
- gambiting 9y agoI'd love to know how can you provide such proof or what you would expect as proof. We've advertised for a senior programmer position for months and had very little local(national) uptake. Almost nothing. Then we hired someone from abroad, but 99% because they were one of few people who actually applied. Does that mean that we could never ever fill this position with a local person? How do you prove that? What makes it more complicated is that it's extremely easy for someone to say "just offer 2x the salary and someone will come" - and that's probably true, but it's extremely ignorant of other market factors in the area.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago> We've advertised for a senior programmer position for months and had very little local(national) uptake. Almost nothing. Then we hired someone from abroad, but 99% because they were one of few people who actually applied. What pay are you offering for the role? > What makes it more complicated is that it's extremely easy for someone to say "just offer 2x the salary and someone will come" - and that's probably true, but it's extremely ignorant of other market factors in the area. It is easy to say that when labor law isn't favorable to importing labor from other countries, which as a US citizen I am in favor of. If your business can't support a wage that attracts talent without importing someone from another country, perhaps that's a problem with the business fundamentals. As a citizen of my country, my fellow citizens are my primary concern, not someone's business. We all have our ideals that have been shaped by our life experiences.
- gambiting 9y agoThis might be a surprise, but there are your "fellow citizens" who run a business too, it's not an "us vs them" issue. >>What pay are you offering for the role? Any answer to that would just trigger a reply of "just pay more" which I don't believe is the answer to the problem. Mostly because in a finite labor pool there's always going to be a shortage and a bidding war will lead to anyone knowing what a keyboard looks like being worth 6-digit salaries.
- KGIII 9y agoVery few individuals pay taxes equal to, or greater than, their costs.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- biocomputation 9y agoIt would be better if the jobs the created were performed by the many qualified American citizens. The 'lack of qualified Americans' is a total lie. This is, and has always been, about labor arbitrage, plain and simple.
- tlb 9y agoPeople who have spent much of their careers hiring people all seem to agree that people who can do the job effectively are hard to find at any price. You may have a different definition of 'qualified'.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- biocomputation 9y agoMy comment should have been clearer. By 'train' I mean train applicants who are somewhat qualified, but not fully qualified. There are 2+ decades of anecdotes about poorly qualified programmers from India and China arriving here as H1Bs. The poorly trained Americans should be getting these jobs instead.
- princekolt 9y agoEven if a large quantity of the workers are foreign, they do spend truckloads of their fat paychecks in the US. Or what you are saying is that trickle-down economy doesn't apply to foreigners, then?
- grenoire 9y agoTrickle-down economy does not apply to anybody in any case.
- princekolt 9y agoThat's my point. However, this is not what anti-immigration folks usually believe.
- Apocryphon 9y agoDon't be too sure about that. The right-wing populism that's been spreading internationally isn't exactly neoliberal in its outlook. Those agitating against H-1Bs aren't hand in hand with those calling for supply-side economics. There are different varieties of right-wing just as there are different types of left-wing.
- whathaschanged 9y agoI don't ever send money to friends and family in another country. They all do. Which worker benefits this nation more?
- princekolt 9y agoForeign remittances are estimated at around $50B yearly[1]. Trump's proposed estate tax repeal (death-tax) would cost $200B, while his corporate tax reform would cost $3.7T (that's trillion with a T)[2]. It's important to remember that remittances are NOT tax money. Who's whacking the economy again? [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/us/politics/immigrants-find-it-cheaper-to-send-money-home.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/us/politics/immigrants-fin... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/26/us/politics/what-trumps-tax-proposal-will-cost.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/26/us/politics/w...
- EternalData 9y agoIf you're big on America First, why wouldn't you want the best foreign entrepreneurs to come and found great companies that generate American jobs, American taxes, and American products?
- andreasklinger 9y agoAssuming your question is rhetorical but to be sure: Imho because it's implicit signaling of `Americans First` (and here implicit only a subset of them)
- pm90 9y agoBecause Trump is not big on America first. He is only big on creating illusions of success for his base. And nothing makes his base happier than to keep immigrants out. Or basically anything that will incense the more urban, liberal Americans.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- MattCuery 9y agoThe best reason why to exclude foreigners from American domestic labor market unless they are highly skilled is that jobs and careers have an economic and social impact beyond mere monetary returns. China knows this all too well in their economic policy.
- craftyguy 9y ago'America first' has everything to do with weeding out, and keeping out, people who are not the same ethnicity as those in power, and nothing to do with actually benefiting the country.
- mbrumlow 9y agoYou do realize "America first' also prevents masses of white guys from across the pond from coming here and doing the same thing? I can't down vote but please don't make everything about race on HN, reddit and twitter are bad enough about jumping to crazy racist notions when trying to have a intellectual conversation.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y agoI imagine a legal victory for the VCs will be spun by the administration as example of "liberal elites" and "activist judges" subverting the democratically elected government. A legal victory won't change many minds, but it could at least prevent some unnecessary economic self-harm.
- jgmmo 9y agoFuck the VCs
- MattCuery 9y agoI don't get how hn can be behind this and question how this goes against America first when y'all always whine about "muh mentorship". Y'all know the value of mentorship and incubation and the cost involved in incubating talent. Talent needs to be developed and cultivated right? So why bring in 'founders' from abroad based on very speculative certia with investment levels below the amount to employ a few Americans to compete at least initially within the American domestic market? Why not throw those resources to create firms in America, even if in the spirit of sino-inspired copyism,to create not just work opportunities but founder opportunities for Americans?
- MattCuery 9y agoI am excited to announce that those who ally around this, that your days are numbered. Your ideas and values will be the basis of a new sustained politics and your rootless lifestyle will find yourself feeling from labor market to labor market wondering everyday where do you really belong. Its not here.
- dang 9y agoWe've banned this account for using HN exclusively for political battle. If that's a misinterpretation and after reading https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html you're sure you want to use the site as intended, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com.
- nostrademons 9y agoBecause most Americans want to be employees, not entrepreneurs, and bringing in entrepreneurs from abroad who already have capital & experience increases the pool of mentors available for people who wish to be employees of small, fast-growing businesses.
- cat199 9y agoa) source? b) this precludes developing an entrepreneurship culture as a related and desirable goal.
- alexanderstears 9y agoIt's amazing VCs have standing. Very unfortunate that we need executive action to allow entrepreneurs to make America their base of operations - not to get too CATO-y here, but it'd be excellent if the right to earn a living was identified as a Constitutional right. Beyond the program proposed, I think anyone in America should be allowed to start a company and should be allowed to stay in America contingent upon their company growing - automatic citizenship for anyone who started and owns >50% of a company that has at least a million /yr in payroll for Americans.
- us0r 9y ago> automatic citizenship for anyone who started and owns >50% of a company that has at least a million /yr in payroll for Americans. Don't we allow people who make a 500k investment a special visa which can turn into a green card which can turn into citizenship?
- alexanderstears 9y agoI think the rules on this are changing, look at how Kusher's use of the program was demonized. But still, it's different. This gives an opportunity to people who create the value, not those who have captured 500k in value and have it ready for conversion into a green card.
- tlb 9y agoThere's a scoping problem. Constitutional rights only extend to citizens and residents (with many edge cases). Thus, people that are directly injured by immigration bans don't usually have standing for a constitutional challenge. The EB-5 visa (https://www.uscis.gov/eb-5 https://www.uscis.gov/eb-5) is similar to what you're asking for, except you have to bring your own money ($1M, maybe less if you can make a case for it).
- alexanderstears 9y agoand in this case we'd extend the right to living to both. It doesn't do much for people who'd like to come here and start a company unless they pull a tourist visa and come in and exercise their right to earn a living.
- davidf18 9y agoIt seems as if this is yet another problem created by President Obama for choosing to legislate through the Executive Branch instead of working with Congress to pass laws. This is somewhat analogous to President Obama allowing DACA illegal aliens to remain in the country. The appropriate course of action would be for the President to ask Congress to pass a law, which is the approach that President Trump took. The VCs, unwisely, invested on President Obama's legislating through the Executive Branch. Now, because of their unwise investment they are complaining. Instead of suing President Trump, the VCs should work with members of Congress to pass a law which would be the correct course of action. Many seem to blame President Trump for events caused by President Obama attempting to legislate through the Executive Branch instead of enforcing the law which is the job of the Executive Branch.
- arikr 9y agoFor what it's worth, the program doesn't provide a substantial advantage over existing visas, due to the requirement of $250k+ in funding. Immigration lawyers I've discussed this with have noted that if someone has $250k+ in funding, they are generally able to get an O-1 visa, anyway. So while this process would likely be easier, it won't help many people who couldn't get a visa via another path. If the requirement was changed to benefit people pre-funding and give them 2-4 years to show promise, then this would be an extremely beneficial rule.
- 8ytecoder 9y agoIn general the visa program is designed for employees and executives. It's so much easier to move to the US as one of the two instead of a founder. An "international manager" for example qualifies for the fastest Green Card process. A founder, whereby no one can fire but yourself, can't get into any of the existing visa criterion. To clarify, for both H1B and O1 you need to have a manager (I presume a co-founder would somehow qualify) to be able to fire you. It's a core criteria.
- anindha 9y agoHaving the board as your "manager" is sufficient.
- technotony 9y agoYour O1 information is incorrect. You can self apply for O1 or apply with a manager. It's often used for creative careers, eg actors (and amusingly porn stars according to my attorney), where the concept of a manager doesn't make sense.
- arikr 9y agoAs the person below you noted, your O-1 information is incorrect. Founders can, and many do, apply for and successfully receive O-1 visas. But yes, the visa system is generally much easier for employees and executives instead of founders.
- vram22 9y ago>Immigration lawyers I've discussed this with have noted that if someone has $250k+ in funding, they are generally able to get an O-1 visa, anyway. Do you mean funding, or 250K+ of their own money?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoReading these comments it seems like where you land depends on whether you believe there are lots of Americans who have the drive/willingness to found their own company. If so then constraining the visa makes sense because VCs already have a large supply of business. Similar to the H1B debate where we recognize that companies don't really care about immigration, they just want better employees for cheaper, this debate's core is that VCs just want to be able to fund better companies for cheaper. I'd say I'm fine with Trump tossing this Visa in the trash. Silicon Valley is an American creation so I don't mind if its benefits go to Americans.
- 8ytecoder 9y agoReally? That's for one a weak argument. But even if we consider that at face value, there are plenty of immigrants who "created" silicon valley. It was not entirely an American creation - if by American, you make it to mean some version of how many generations someone has been here.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago>Really? That's for one a weak argument. Then lay it out. >But even if we consider that at face value, there are plenty of immigrants who "created" silicon valley. After we hash this out we can debate how many grains of sand compose a pile too. It's plainly American. >It was not entirely an American creation - if by American, you make it to mean some version of how many generations someone has been here. How about we define American like this: someone who has no other country but America. I have absolutely no problem saying that VCs which have survived and thrived in large part because they exist in America should consider Americans first and should help American kids, not purely use our country as a homebase to go out and snipe the cheapest equity opportunities possible from around the world. Pay it back guys.
- pcwalton 9y ago> How about we define American like this: someone who has no other country but America. As someone with a dual citizen parent (well, next year anyway), you just excluded my parents from the definition of "American", despite my family being here since the early 1800s. I'm certain that's not what you meant.
- samfisher83 9y agoWhy don't they open offices in a more immigration friendly country?
- peterlk 9y agoBecause US markets are worth doing business in.
- samfisher83 9y agoI understand, but if the US doesn't want immigrants then why not open up in Canada or some other place that have freer immigration law. Or is America the only place you can be successful?
- mankash666 9y agoThat's a fair question, and a real trend. In the short term it doesn't seem detrimental to the US economy. I believe that the US will gain pole position in the future by encouraging immigration of high skilled, entrepreneurial individuals. And data suggests a similar benefit.
- slimshady94 9y agoAmerica is the best place for VC money. For now atleast, in 20 years, who knows? Singapore or Canada or Berlin may become the next hotspot.
- pnw_hazor 9y agoThe US is the most immigrant friendly country.
- gozur88 9y agoOr in their own country.
- sudosteph 9y agoThe really ironic part of this is that while VCs will claim "America First" is exclusionary(it is), their practice of "Silicon Valley First" is accepted as a normal fact of life. Opportunity in America is not equal. Many smart, working class kids would love to be an entrepreneur, and it's not lack of ambition or talent holding them back. It's simple economics and lack of mentorship or investment available. I'm all for bringing more entrepeneurs into the US. But I wish VCs were half as interested in growing talent here, at public universities across the nation and in cities not as hip as SFO.
- markh 9y agoThe kind of entrepreneurs most likely to succeed (and therefore gain the attention of VCs) figure out how to relocate to startup hubs where they can get the attention of the VC community and network their way into the ecosystem. It’s way easier to move from Florida to San Francisco that it is from Paris, Sydney or Cape Town, and the extra hoops foreign entrepreneurs have to jump through makes them stand out all the more (relatively speaking). Very few American entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley grew up there either. It becomes a self-selecting sample.
- sudosteph 9y agoAnd for those people who have legitimate reasons to not relocate to the most expensive area in the U.S.? You know, reasons like familial obligations and limited safety net income? They should just accept that they weren't likely to succeed in the first place, because otherwise they would have relocated? That's nonsense. Plenty of very successful companies run succesfully somewhere other than SV. If you run a tech shop, that knows what you're doing, has the talent and resources on-hand, you don't need to be in SV other than for networking (which you only need to do to get those talent and resources in the first place). I would love to see numbers on long-term success vs funding numbers by city. I'd argue that for long-term success and a customer base that is consumer oriented (as opposed to B2B which does benefit from SFO or NYC), a location with lower expenses and less employee turnover due to less competition seems beneficial. Worked for starting Amazon and Microsoft, some of the THE most successful companies right now (even if Seattle is becoming more like SF every day now).
- danjoc 9y ago"the Trump administration violated federal rulemaking laws" "The court challenge concerns the International Entrepreneur Rule, a program instituted under former President Barack Obama" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_entrepreneur_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_entrepreneur_rul... "this rule does not need to be approved by Congress." It seems like VCs were unable to get a law passed, so they tried to use their influence over the president to slip one past the democratic process. That seems dishonest. I'm glad to see president Trump standing up to that sort of intimidation. If they want a law, they need to participate in the democratic process like everyone else.
- pavlov 9y agoDoesn’t “federal rulemaking laws” specifically mean the laws that govern this kind of executive regulation that is not actual law? I don’t see the contradiction. Also, what intimidation?
- terravion 9y agoNo actually, a lot of immigration is administrative (as opposed to legislative). The congress has delegated wide authority in this to the executive branch. However, for the executive to exercise this authority there is a whole body of procedure that all administrative agencies have to follow so that it isn't capricious rules that change with the executive's mood. Not following the administrative procedures is what's a subversion of the democratic process (i.e. the executive is exceeding the authority granted to it by our representatives.)
- danjoc 9y ago>rules that change with the executive's mood That seems like a mis-characterization of the situation. Trump's mood hasn't changed. Making major changes to immigration policy and trade deals was the foundation of Trump's presidential campaign.
- terravion 9y agoThe law, that Trump and every other president is sworn to uphold, says the administrative regulations are supposed to be created only following the legislatively mandated rule making process. While Trump's appointees are free to initiate a new rule making process--as for example his FCC commissioner is doing to the chagrin of most HN commenters on net neutrality--he's not free to just decide to change administrative regulations absent the appropriate procedures and evidence even if he campaigned on that rule change. If the case is as the NVCA claims--where the administrative procedures act wasn't followed, I hope they win.
- pascalxus 9y agoOnce again, we see high-powered liberals trying to circumvent the democratic process by Suing to enact political change. Everyone should be held to the same rulebook. The courts are not there to subvert the political process.
- jhpriestley 9y agoThe courts have a defined role within the political process - the interpretation of the law - which they are following here. Both conservative and liberal activists have a long history of suing to enact political change. It is important that these issues are worked out in court precisely so that the rulebook is applied with more fairness.
- EliRivers 9y agoNVCA contends that the Trump administration’s decision violated the Administrative Procedures Act Is the complaint not that the administration broke the rules?
- tomc1985 9y agoSilicon Valley needs to stop harping on the Visa program and simply pay people what they want to receive. It is amazing that an idea can bring in $50 million in investment and they're still splitting hairs on individual salaries. There is plenty of talent stateside - stop bitching about the costs and just fucking pay it. These cost minimization assholes need to be swept away. Companies are sitting on larger stockpiles of cash than ever before, owing to years of White House uncertainty; they have the money and simply need to spend it. On one hand you hear about how SV is just sooooooo flush with cash and then in the other hand entrepreneurs complain that talent is too expensive. Every single one of those clowns is a fraud.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> There is plenty of talent stateside This is not always true. In any case, the realistic tradeoff is (a) people who would have started businesses in the United States that hired Americans will start them overseas [1] and (b) investment that would have funded American businesses, hiring Americans, will seek out the best founders overseas. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/china-makes-the-world-takes/305987/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/china-m...
- gumby 9y agoI think you have it backwards. This is to help bring in people who will start companies in the US and hire people in the US. The major VCs mentioned in the article (such as Accel) already have VC arms overseas, funding companies which employ foreigners in their home countries. If you want more of the latter (using US capital to build companies, jobs, products etc) then go ahead, recind this visa.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- biocomputation 9y ago<< funding companies which employ foreigners in their home countries. Those foreign companies should benefit their foreign founders and local economies. Not every economic benefit needs to accrue to the US.
- mariushn 9y agoWhy not move to Canada?
- yahna 9y agoMoney and opportunity to work on interesting stuff. I've been thinking about moving back.
- jstewartmobile 9y agoI think it's pretty dirty. Recent contributions that impress me the most typically come from western europeans / canadians who got solid educations on the taxpayer's dime back home. SV wants their know-how without having to foot the tax bill for it. Meanwhile, the rest of the US is littered with marginal state and private institutions that leave local kids with big debts for small skills. This is a typical SV f*-everybody move though. Europeans get screwed by paying for an education that benefits the US. Americans get screwed for paying megabucks all these years for the military-industrial complex that SV grew out of, but the jobs are reserved for the anointed of the earth, and the profits are stockpiled in Ireland/Netherlands/Bermuda.
- hack4supper 9y agoA quick summary of the article: https://summarybrew.com/p/top-venture-capitalists-are-suing-the-trump-administration-after-it-delayed-a-key-immigration-program https://summarybrew.com/p/top-venture-capitalists-are-suing-...
- kid0m4n 9y agoSo many comments in this thread remind me of the South Park parody about "they took our jobs!" A country founded by immigrants, often dubbed the "land of opportunities" and a worshiper of capitalism now will only give the golden ticket to the most able AMERICAN.