5 ms·

Can someone help me understand what the new reforms are? I have seen a lot of countries offer "entrepreneur" visas. And all of them are highly unrealistic and

Can someone help me understand what the new reforms are? I have seen a lot of countries offer "entrepreneur" visas. And all of them are highly unrealistic and out of touch with reality. Standard requirements are masters, sometimes phd, have 500K euro funding and the like, able to employ 5 people within a year (!) and so on. Policy makes clearly don't understand what makes startups work. I think people should be allowed into a country as long as can show proof of funds, a business plan (more like a statement of intent) and the progress can be revisited every year for visa renewal. Anything else is absurd.

gordon_freeman 12y ago
there is a need to form a committee of such policy makers who can understand the startup culture, have funded startups in the past, or preferably have started startups themselves. Then only can they understand the kind of policy reforms we need to make it easy for foreign nationals to come US and start a start-up.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  Is there any highly specialized policy decision that this isn't true of?
jakozaur 12y ago
Some countries try to fit "startups" in traditional investor capital-heavy visas, but there are plenty of good examples. E.g. Canada, UK, Ireland, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_Visa#mediaviewer/File:Comparison_of_Entrepreneur_Visa_Schemes_Worlwide.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_Visa#mediaviewer/File:C...
- desdiv 12y ago
  Gotta love how Canada surreptitiously took over half of the eastern seaboard.
  - xordon 12y ago
    It didn't, but that is probably one of the worst map projections I've ever seen.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
I don't see why "entrepreneurs" of any kind should receive special visa prioritization over all other categories of entrant.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  The standard argument against immigration is that it "takes jobs away" from local applicants. A successful business will typically generate new jobs. Thus, allowing in people who create jobs over those that take them is seen as a net positive.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    If I were to start Chris's Italian American bakery I'm likely taking some business away from Patel's Pure Ghee Sweets and possibly reducing the number of jobs he creates. So while I've generated 5 gross jobs, it's unclear that I generated any net jobs. (For the record I think "new jobs" is a moronic reason to do anything. A job is a cost, delicious rainbow cookies are the benefit.)
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      Completely agree with all of that. But that is the standard reductionist argument.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      This is true to the extent that different goods are economic substitutes for each other. But even if they are perfect substitutes and no net jobs are created, increased competition would reduce prices for consumers, resulting in a net aggregate economic benefit. I also think 'jobs' is a moronic reason to do things but immigration policy, more than most, is the focus of atavistic political passions rather than rational economic analysis.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    There doesn't need to be any argument against immigration. Since immigration is something the state actively does and permits, immigration policies require active justification in terms of how they benefit the country.
protomyth 12y ago
> Can someone help me understand what the new reforms are? The basis of the "reforms"[1] is that the Administration will not enforce certain parts of immigration law. I don't think anyone can truthfully answer your question until the shakes out in court. 1) you really cannot call them reforms since they have no legislative backing to provide a foundation for new rule making or court decisions
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  This is inaccurate. The administration already has the legal discretion for this action by statute; it's just that up to now it has been employed on a case-by-case basis and basically subject to the whims of individual immigration officers, rather than pursuant to guidance from the Attorney-General.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    That's a bit inaccurate. Prosecutors have legal discretion on a case-by-case basis, but a President not enforcing large sections of the law has never been tested. This is going to be complicated and messy. If your belief is the truth, what happens when the next President decides not to enforce the laws they don't like?
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Not so. The delegation of discretionary power to the agency (whose head serves at the pleasure of the President) is explicit in the statute. As I pointed out above, the President is not declining to enforce the law, but promulgating standards for how that discretion should be applied. Furthermore, this is not as novel a situation as some commentators claim, because such standards are regularly promulgated in other similar contexts, such as rules not to automatically exclude would-be immigrants who infected with HIV (instituted and terminated by executive fiat) or to grant refugee status to people from conflict/disaster zones, which are similar exercises of discretion. The only 'large' thing here is the number of people who might qualify for residential status under the newly-promulgated criteria for evaluation (eg 5 year continuous presence inside the US plus parental relationship to a US citizen/LPR plus absence of felony convictions). Here again is the DoJ's legal memorandum on the allowable scope of executive action in this context - you'll notice that it affirms the President's powers to act in some respects while denying it in others. I'd be glad to discuss it in depth but the document is necessarily long and technical. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/atta...
chiph 12y ago
> Can someone help me understand what the new reforms are? They are a lot less attractive, the more you read the details. While they're certainly an improvement, for the most part they are temporary in nature, and don't address the fundamental problems with immigration in the US. Which, TBH, needs to originate in the legislative branch. - Expands those eligible for the existing DACA program, for children under 16 that came here before 2010. Extends the period from 2 to 3 years. - Allows parents of legal immigrants to request deferment for 3 years. - Provisional waivers for sons & daughters of citizens and lawful residents are expanded - Lets applicants for naturalization use their credit cards to pay their fees http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction

gordon_freeman 12y ago

there is a need to form a committee of such policy makers who can understand the startup culture, have funded startups in the past, or preferably have started startups themselves. Then only can they understand the kind of policy reforms we need to make it easy for foreign nationals to come US and start a start-up.

kasey_junk 12y ago
Is there any highly specialized policy decision that this isn't true of?

jakozaur 12y ago

Some countries try to fit "startups" in traditional investor capital-heavy visas, but there are plenty of good examples. E.g. Canada, UK, Ireland, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_Visa#mediaviewer/File:Comparison_of_Entrepreneur_Visa_Schemes_Worlwide.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_Visa#mediaviewer/File:C...

desdiv 12y ago
Gotta love how Canada surreptitiously took over half of the eastern seaboard.
- xordon 12y ago
  It didn't, but that is probably one of the worst map projections I've ever seen.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

I don't see why "entrepreneurs" of any kind should receive special visa prioritization over all other categories of entrant.

kasey_junk 12y ago
The standard argument against immigration is that it "takes jobs away" from local applicants. A successful business will typically generate new jobs. Thus, allowing in people who create jobs over those that take them is seen as a net positive.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  If I were to start Chris's Italian American bakery I'm likely taking some business away from Patel's Pure Ghee Sweets and possibly reducing the number of jobs he creates. So while I've generated 5 gross jobs, it's unclear that I generated any net jobs. (For the record I think "new jobs" is a moronic reason to do anything. A job is a cost, delicious rainbow cookies are the benefit.)
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    Completely agree with all of that. But that is the standard reductionist argument.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    This is true to the extent that different goods are economic substitutes for each other. But even if they are perfect substitutes and no net jobs are created, increased competition would reduce prices for consumers, resulting in a net aggregate economic benefit. I also think 'jobs' is a moronic reason to do things but immigration policy, more than most, is the focus of atavistic political passions rather than rational economic analysis.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  There doesn't need to be any argument against immigration. Since immigration is something the state actively does and permits, immigration policies require active justification in terms of how they benefit the country.

protomyth 12y ago

> Can someone help me understand what the new reforms are? The basis of the "reforms"[1] is that the Administration will not enforce certain parts of immigration law. I don't think anyone can truthfully answer your question until the shakes out in court. 1) you really cannot call them reforms since they have no legislative backing to provide a foundation for new rule making or court decisions

anigbrowl 12y ago
This is inaccurate. The administration already has the legal discretion for this action by statute; it's just that up to now it has been employed on a case-by-case basis and basically subject to the whims of individual immigration officers, rather than pursuant to guidance from the Attorney-General.
- protomyth 12y ago
  That's a bit inaccurate. Prosecutors have legal discretion on a case-by-case basis, but a President not enforcing large sections of the law has never been tested. This is going to be complicated and messy. If your belief is the truth, what happens when the next President decides not to enforce the laws they don't like?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Not so. The delegation of discretionary power to the agency (whose head serves at the pleasure of the President) is explicit in the statute. As I pointed out above, the President is not declining to enforce the law, but promulgating standards for how that discretion should be applied. Furthermore, this is not as novel a situation as some commentators claim, because such standards are regularly promulgated in other similar contexts, such as rules not to automatically exclude would-be immigrants who infected with HIV (instituted and terminated by executive fiat) or to grant refugee status to people from conflict/disaster zones, which are similar exercises of discretion. The only 'large' thing here is the number of people who might qualify for residential status under the newly-promulgated criteria for evaluation (eg 5 year continuous presence inside the US plus parental relationship to a US citizen/LPR plus absence of felony convictions). Here again is the DoJ's legal memorandum on the allowable scope of executive action in this context - you'll notice that it affirms the President's powers to act in some respects while denying it in others. I'd be glad to discuss it in depth but the document is necessarily long and technical. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/atta...

chiph 12y ago

> Can someone help me understand what the new reforms are? They are a lot less attractive, the more you read the details. While they're certainly an improvement, for the most part they are temporary in nature, and don't address the fundamental problems with immigration in the US. Which, TBH, needs to originate in the legislative branch. - Expands those eligible for the existing DACA program, for children under 16 that came here before 2010. Extends the period from 2 to 3 years. - Allows parents of legal immigrants to request deferment for 3 years. - Provisional waivers for sons & daughters of citizens and lawful residents are expanded - Lets applicants for naturalization use their credit cards to pay their fees http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction