Unlike the system of using H1B visas as the first step in outsourcing jobs over-seas, the white house is planning to allow immigrants who work at a funded startup where they have at least a 15% ownership stake to stay in the US for up to 5 years.
http://www.recode.net/2016/8/26/12652892/white-house-startup-visa
Already speaking out in favor of the new rules is PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who moved to the U.S. from the Soviet Union in 1991.
"I believe that the most promising entrepreneurs from around the world should have the same opportunity I had — the chance to deliver on their potential, here in America," Levchin said in an email released by the White House.
To be eligible to work in the U.S. under the new rule, the foreigner would have to own at least 15 percent of a U.S.-based startup, have a central role in its operations and have "potential for rapid business growth and job creation."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:54AM
Step 1 get a group of 6 people.
1 works for the main company.
The other 5 are 'entrepreneurs'.
The first dude works for another company say a tech recruiting firm.
The other 5 take orders from the first guy in 'their company'.
The first guy works with another group of 5 guys. In another cell.
Boom unlimited h1b with none of the BS of h1b.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @03:46AM
There will be game playing, but that's no different from any other law or executive order providing incentives for certain behaviors. A good example are the tax incentives states and cities throw at major corporations to set up shop - then there are local news stories a few years later when the layoffs hit.
Bottom line is someone better keep track of who signs up for this program and to make sure it wasn't a bait and switch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @04:04AM
H1B as terrorist cells! Now you've done it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @04:28AM
Won't work as stated.
Dig a bit, you'll see that you need some pretty substantial capital for each one. This would be one hell of an expensive way of importing rack monkeys and cable squirrels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @04:51AM
Start with 1 million dollars. 'loan' it to someone else who pays 0% interest. Then loan it again... Poof 2 companies with 2 million in 'capital' on paper...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @08:37AM
Ready to start. Can haz million dollars?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 28 2016, @10:49AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @03:37PM
> I think this is the loophole.
Nope. RTFS. Each one must "have a central role in its operations."
This sort of "pass-through" would never pass even a cursory examination.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 28 2016, @04:31PM
Each one must "have a central role in its operations."
Still not seeing what the difficulty is supposed to be. Of course, there's going to be some hoops to jump through for appearances.
This sort of "pass-through" would never pass even a cursory examination.
I think we can look to the H1-B program to get an idea of just how cursory the examination will be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:34PM
Start with 1 million dollars. 'loan' it to someone else who pays 0% interest. Then loan it again... Poof 2 companies with 2 million in 'capital' on paper...
Yeah, they would never think to verify the paperwork. INS, checking papers? That never happens.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Sunday August 28 2016, @07:06AM
I'm sure there's a loophole here somewhere, deliberately designed to be exploited, but it's not immediately obvious. You don't make laws like this, unless they hugely benefit some class of lobbiest, or rather, those lobbiests' customers. So where's the catch?
If I think of, for example, western entrepreneurs (UK, German, etc.): If they've founded a startup, there is zero reason for them to uproot their startup and move to Silicon Valley. That's not going to happen. Maybe, if an individual invests and works in a company that is starting in SV, that would be a reason to move there, but that's a relatively unusual situation.
Ok, let's look at the next class of countries. Take a group of people from India. Would it be possible for an established company in SV to say "we need some cheap programmers", to create a startup, retain 50.1% ownership and distribute the rest to the Indian programmers in place of salaries? Lure them in with a chance to "get rich quick", but actually abuse the hell out of them, because many salary laws do not apply to owner? It's sort of the Uber model of programming.
That sounds entirely believable...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:30PM
You don't make laws like this, unless they hugely benefit some class of lobbiest, or rather, those lobbiests' customers.
You are right. You don't make laws like this without benefiting lobbyists. That's why congress couldn't make this law. It is an executive order - from the president who no longer needs money from donors in order to get re-elected.
Maybe, if an individual invests and works in a company that is starting in SV,
RTFA, that's exactly what this is about.
retain 50.1% ownership and distribute the rest to the Indian programmers in place of salaries?
Since each person must have at least 15% ownership, that's just 3 people. Hardly a wave of unchecked immigration.