Administration Creates A Hack For A Entrepreneur's Immigration Visa

from the innovation-for-innovation dept

Fri, Aug 26th 2016 4:29pm — Mike Masnick

For many, many years we've talked about why the US should have an entrepreneur's visa to let in smart entrepreneurs who are able to build companies and create jobs in the US, rather than kicking out the very people who are helping to build out the US economy. However, because immigration is such a touchy issue, attempts to do so via Congress have gone nowhere. And while we've had some concerns about the actual implementation (in particular the focus on requiring the entrepreneurs to raise a fair amount of venture capital), the general concept is a good one.

Late on Friday, it appears that the White House effectively worked out a way to create a startup entrepreneur's visa on its own, without going through Congress. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a plan to expand the "parole" powers it already has to international entrepreneurs, allowing them to stay in the country while building a company:

The proposed rule would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use its existing discretionary statutory parole authority for entrepreneurs of startup entities whose stay in the United States would provide a significant public benefit through the substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation.

Homeland Security would review each request on a case-by-case basis, but would require the following rules:

Who have a significant ownership interest in the startup (at least 15 percent) and have an active and central role to its operations;
Whose startup was formed in the United States within the past three years; and
Whose startup has substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation, as evidenced by:
Receiving significant investment of capital (at least $345,000) from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments;
Receiving significant awards or grants (at least $100,000) from certain federal, state or local government entities; or
Partially satisfying one or both of the above criteria in addition to other reliable and compelling evidence of the startup entity’s substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.

This does seem better than some of the earlier proposals, which included requirements after receiving the visa to have to raise upwards of $1 million from investors. We were worried that this would basically force entrepreneurs to take money from VCs when they might not otherwise need to. This parole system still has raising money as a criteria, but the amount is significantly lower and DHS also has the flexibility to still grant the parole without the investment if there is "other reliable and compelling evidence of the startup entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation."

It does still feel a bit arbitrary, but overall this is definitely a good step for entrepreneurship in the US.

FR-2016-20663-793250-OFR (PDF)FR-2016-20663-793250-OFR (Text)

Filed Under: dhs, entrepreneur's visa, entrepreneurship, immigration, parole, startup visa

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:51pm

Receiving significant investment of capital (at least $345,000) from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments;

This smacks of cronyism. "Yeah, you can stay, but only if you're sponsored by someone on this short list of people who all happen to be donors to my campaign. I'm sure you'll be able to work out a deal favorable to one of them."

Whose startup was formed in the United States within the past three years;

So they can stick around for 3 years building their business, and then we'll deport them? Is that really the plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:54pm
  
  Re:
  This smacks of cronyism. "Yeah, you can stay, but only if you're sponsored by someone on this short list of people who all happen to be donors to my campaign. I'm sure you'll be able to work out a deal favorable to one of them."
  
  Possibly, though I doubt it. If that's how it came down, there would be a massive uproar.
  
  So they can stick around for 3 years building their business, and then we'll deport them? Is that really the plan?
  
  The plan allows for much longer than that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 28 Aug 2016 @ 7:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The plan is to have them stay long enough to qualify as a "US Person" for taxation purposes, and then they can be taxed on their worldwide income for the rest of their lives (as can any children they have while in the US).
    
    Only in Eritrea and the US...bastions of democratic virtuousness.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:56pm

Congress in action

" However, because immigration is such a touchy issue, attempts to do so via Congress have gone nowhere."
I came accross the following quote the other day, and have been waiting for a good excuse.

"...has failed to account for the fact that Congress, as currently constituted, couldn't provide a stool sample if it was locked in a cholera ward, but that's the system we have."
The quote came from here, a FaultLines article by Noel Erinjeri
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2016 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re: Congress in action
  Our immigration system has been a mess for a long time. Yet, back in 2008, when Obama had a Democratically controlled Congress, he and Congress did exactly zero to "fix" the problem. Now that the GOP runs Congress, it seems like people blame Congress for the problem, exclusively.
  
  Obama had ample opportunity to address this issue for the first two years of his presidency, as did the Democratically controlled Congress. They choose to keep the system as it is. Why should anyone expect the GOP to change it now to suit the Democrats, especially since the Democrats squandered an opportunity to do so themselves?
  
  Or maybe both sides just want an issue to blame the other about? Because both are just as guilty of inaction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 8:39am
    
    Re: Re: Congress in action
    Not only that, the Dems could have soaked the rich with taxes and they did absolutely zero. But they did make taxes a re-election issue and have not mentioned it since. Seems the dems are as rich as the repubs and aren't actually wanting to soak the rich. But the average Joe Dem doesn't see that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:23pm

What is the saying about sounds too good to be true?

Plus anything that has homeland security attached to it is suspect from the get go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimeToDevNullThem, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:47pm

It says DHS on it...it's like HFCS in it.
This is a document, that on the day when I am tasked to restore the republic, will not be relevant, it will be nullified along with the ENTIRE ****ING DHS which is POISON for Freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 8:26pm

Interesting, but still a bad idea
This may be well-intentioned, but I am of the opinion that we already have far too much discretionary authority vested in the executive branch. I would much rather see a change in the law to provide the needed improvements, rather than an executive action based solely on discretionary reinterpretation of existing statutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 8:33pm
  
  Re: Interesting, but still a bad idea
  It is a bad idea. Unfortunately it is the least bad option available. Obama has gone whole-hog on executive orders because congress has essentially abdicated their job. All those people who like to say that our government had gridlock constitutionally designed in (I used to be one of them) are seeing the result of that theory put to the test.
  
  I don't see it getting any better for the forseeable future either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2016 @ 9:09am

Uhhh... Where to start with this...
Now immigration has rules?? Who knew?! Is it not already law that immigrants demonstrate they have means of support, yet we have majorities of immigrants from certain countries on benefits. The pro-increasing immigration side just wants to argue about what the exact percentage of immigrants on welfare is. The law says zero.
Shame a few thousand (handful?) of "immigrant entrepreneurs" (doesn't that actually describe attorneys that make a living shepherding all takers into the country?) have to obey some regs, but the more basic considerations, that are already established in law yet flaunted, are many times more influential on immigration policy, while at the same time being completely ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 27 Aug 2016 @ 5:22pm

Outrage
I just can't wait for all the outrage. You know it's coming, now that Obama has opened the floodgates for ISIS terrorist mobster migrant rapist immigrants from Mexico.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]