[Finbarr]

Reading through it. The gist is you can get 30 months of parole from USCIS if you are a startup entrepreneur that has raised investment. Seems like the threshold is $250k and it can support up to 3 founders. You must own at least 10% to be considered a founder.

Looks like you can also get an additional 30 months by raising a further $500k, or having at least $500k ARR with 20% annual growth, or employing 5 US persons full time. You need to maintain a 5% stake and continue to serve a central role in operations in order to qualify for the additional 30 months.

The investment has to be raised from investors with a track record of investing in high growth startups.

This will come into force from July 17 2017.

[cma]

One thing that will let you in is if you are invested in from

> investors with established records of successful investments

The rich get richer. Established investors get cheap labor, while upstart competitive investors get buried behind an artificial government wall. I wonder if any established investment firms lobbied for that?

[_delirium]

This kind of rule (Canada was floating a similar one) is usually added in an attempt to keep visa-sellers out of the market, i.e. outfits who will agree to fake "invest" money in your fake "startup" in return for an under-the-table fee. By limiting the people who can count as investors to those who have a track record of actually investing in startups, the hope is that this kind of fraud will be at least less frequent, and easier to police.

[whack]

The EB5 program already exists which allows people to buy permanent residency. Anyone who wants to "buy a visa" can just do that with the full blessing of the government.

[_delirium]

That requires quite a bit more money, at least $500,000. Yeah, people who have that kind of money can already buy a visa. But a visa-reselling scheme here could be much cheaper, targeting people who want to buy a visa for, say, $30,000. The fraudulent investor would structure their investment so they don't actually part with the purported investment money (depending on what checks are done, there are various ways to either hang on to the money or round-trip it), and just charges a fee for agreeing to pretend to invest and temporarily fronting the required investment money.

[Finbarr]

All you get for your money is parole though -- not a visa. You couldn't work for other companies or stay indefinitely without getting another type of visa.

[lend000]

Same with hedge funds. Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds (and get richer). I love how the government asserts that it knows what's best for me and protects me from myself. Such a free nation we live in.

[bsder]

> Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds

Having dealt with this situation recently, I'm a little more sympathetic to the government's position.

Most investors are dumb. Really dumb. No, dumber than that.

It's really easy for a con man to set up shop. It takes forever to get him shut down, and the scammed will fight you.

Scammed investors will defend the scammer even when you present them with incontrovertible proof. You can stand in court and have a judge hand down rulings of the level of "worst case I have seen" and they will STILL defend him.

Preventing these kinds of "investors" from even getting into the game is really the only way to keep it under control.

Trump being elected was hardly a surprise to me given my recent experiences with dumb investors.

[adharmad]

Won't such people find other ways of getting in trouble or losing their money? How many such avenues can the government block?

[lend000]

Sounds like a problem with a different part of the system (too many legal protections to effectively shut down ponzi schemes/cons/etc.). In general, I've never heard a compelling argument that the government should pass laws that limit people's freedoms, solely for the purpose of potentially defending people from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves.

[bsder]

> too many legal protections to effectively shut down ponzi schemes/cons/etc.

The problem is that the the person carrying out the scam is playing with "house money" while the ones trying to stop him are paying cash. He is paying lawyers with the money from the investors and burning up the assets. So, by the time you are done, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.

[lend000]

How many hedge funds fall into this category of scammers? And with our protective legal framework, how come you still had to deal with a situation like this?

Not only do I dislike the freedom limitations in principle, but I've been giving everyone the benefit of the doubt that limiting freedoms will actually prevent the targeted type of scams. In reality, scammers will always find a way, criminals are not bound by laws, and we're still stuck with the inherent flaws of only giving the rich access to wealth-generating funds.

[JabavuAdams]

> from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves

Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc.

No one person wants to be constrained, but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society. Especially when they are well-known cognitive exploits that work on people despite their own stated preferences.

[lend000]

> Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc.

So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. Let's punish victims. Seems pretty backwards to me, even though your goal is to be proactive. Might as well outlaw suicide while we're at it.

> but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society

An example might be good here to back up a pretty questionable claim.

[Chris2048]

> Trump being elected was hardly a surprise to me given my recent experiences with dumb investors.

This is needlessly flame-baitey

[daodedickinson]

Imagine if we were forced to live in a system where we had to choose between two people like that!

[8ytecoder]

What bothers me more is the restriction on investing in IPOs.

[vostok]

Isn't the restriction on investing in IPOs imposed by banks and not the government? You're just not going to get an allocation if you're not a "good customer".

[throwaway5752]

Yeah, that is 100% the result of the private financial system (investment banks). Remember when Google did the open dutch auction format and what a big deal that was for cutting them out?

[chulk90]

Don't you think you're making too much assumption here? If a large firm lobbied to create an "artificial ... wall," they would write a pre-defined amount, such as "firms who have $100MM AUM," rather than making it vague.

"Successful investments" can be validated with a reasonable argument, so it actually opens door for younger VCs.

[cma]

Or maybe by making it vague they will get even more protection, especially if they have ins with the regulators who will interpret it. Seems more likely for established players than for upstarts.

But maybe not. Just throwing it out there.

[oh_sigh]

Without it, you would have people just buying their way into 6+ years in the country.

[cma]

How about instead we use something similar to the existing framework for minimizing charity fraud?

[orasis]

So your investment thesis is "cheaper is better."?

[mnglkhn2]

Who's going to stop an investor from pushing you out from a central role in operations and hence kick you out of the country? All this after 2.5yrs put in the company, working your best for those years.

[Finbarr]

Given the amounts we're talking about, it's likely the founders would still have complete control of the board.

[goodcjw2]

The threshold feels low, especially when compared the the new H1B threshold at 100K. As mentioned earlier, this could be easily gamed.

[uiri]

especially when compared the the new H1B threshold at 100K

What on Earth are you talking about? That $100K threshold is designed to target body shops.

There are a class of employers which are H-1B dependent; generally, those with at least 15% of their employees on the visa. Currently, H-1Bs with a salary of at least $60K are not counted toward that 15%. The bill will change this to $100K salary.

It is possible to hire a H-1B for $50k under the current laws if that is market rate for the relevant position.

[spiralpolitik]

The 100k threshold will do nothing for body shops. They will structure it so that on paper every employee makes the required amount to keep the DOL/DHS happy while clawing it back from the employee through "fees", "charges", and other underhanded tactics.

They've always done this and always will.

[Daishiman]

It increases the threshold of money involved, increases the amount of potential accounting tricks they have to do, and it raises the bar.

Political measures don't need to be absolutely effective to be useful. Raising the difficulty might be enough to deter a large number of fraudulent applications.

[xenadu02]

It's explicitly designed for people who get into YC: you get 2.5 years to prove your startup can make it to the next stage, the 2.5 more years to turn it into a real business (after which there are far more options like K-1, O-1, and various E investor visas). Depending on the situation it might be a formality... if your startup has grown to medium size with 100 employees and $20m revenue my guess is DHS will find any excuse to give you general public-benefit parole or an O-1.

You are also free to apply for other visas while in the US without affecting your parole.

[stale2002]

I know right!

Company "invests" 250k into a "startup" who's only job is to "consult" with the parent investor company.

BAM! You've just hired 3 engineers right there, who have completely skipped the greencard line.

[cperciva]

I'd assume this is why they have qualification requirements on the investors.

[chrisper]

Is the 100k cap official or is it just an idea so far?

[nopinsight]

Does anyone know how the process is supposed to work once one gets the Parole? Would the Parole allow one to travel freely in and out of the States, like a Green Card holder, during the its valid period?

E-2 visa for some nationals requires the person to reapply for the visa if one travels outside the US and wants to get back in, which is a major pain point. (There is a period, for example 6 months or 1 year, when the re-entry is permitted without re-application. This varies with the country.)

[deepGem]

I read through the rules and couldn't find any mention. Which means it's safe to assume that you can travel freely in and out of US within the parole period. All Visas to the US are mostly multiple entry Visas unless otherwise stated. Probably this parole is similar.

[nopinsight]

That is quite reassuring. Thank you! :)

[rudyrigot]

I'm afraid the point of parole is that it can be decided at the border, at the entire discretion of the custom officers, without needing change in laws (hence why Obama is doing it this way). So, even if there was a guideline about this, you're getting zero guarantee that you will be admitted in next time.

[gotrecruit]

about the E-2 thing you said, it's only true if you applied within the US. if you applied and got an E-2 outside of US, you can freely leave and enter on it anytime.

[nopinsight]

I talked with an immigration lawyer last year. She told me that the period of free re-entry was only within 6 months of the visa issuance. I did check and found a list of varying periods for different countries on some website (I can't find it now.)

However, I just found this paragraph on www.uscis.gov:

"An E-2 nonimmigrant who travels abroad may generally be granted an automatic two-year period of readmission when returning to the United States. It is generally not necessary to file a new Form I-129 with USCIS in this situation."

So I guess one may want to re-check to be very sure if one wants to get an E-2. I'm going to apply for the Entrepreneur Parole since it fits my situation much better.

[Xixi]

I have an E-2 visa, valid for 5 years. The way it works is exactly as you read on www.uscis.gov: upon entry in the US there is a 2 year reentry permission: it is renewed each time the border is crossed. In practice it means that I need to go out of the US at least once every two years to keep the ability to travel freely. Conclusion: the E-2 visa is great if you intend to travel abroad often, otherwise another visa is probably better.

The durations may vary depending on the country the visa is issued from (due to the underlying treaty), and the status associated to it: in my case France as an essential employee (NOT as an investor).

[fovc]

What exactly does parole mean in an immigration context? Would it threaten future visa/immigration options if you fail to renew?

[neom]

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2017-00481/p-389

[fovc]

Thanks. That led me to:

> The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.

[0]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title8/html/USCODE...

[gigatexal]

A similar scheme works for Canadian immigration.

[fapjacks]

But... Does it work?

[mysterypie]

Typical case went like this: Immigrant investor to Canada spent $300K (Canadian) to buy a pizza joint, hired 5 minimum wage workers, operated business for 3.5 years, then sold it or closed it. Minimum investments and required duration of the business have varied over the years, and by province as well.

The typical immigrant investor was not starting Google, a genomics lab, a 3D printing business, or anything even vaguely innovative.

[emilyfm]

That was the "investor" visa ("owner-operator").

The US International Entrepreneur Rule is more like the "Start Up Visa" [1] that was introduced in Canada a few years ago, which allows entry for founders of a business supported by local venture capital or incubators (subject to certain monetary amounts and conditions).

A major difference: the Canadian start-up visa gives immediate permanent residence, rather than a number of years of temporary status with no guaranteed route forward.

[1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/

[nopinsight]

What happens to them afterward? Do they get a permanent residency just from operating that venture for 3.5 years?

(Do they need to pass the point-based qualification as well to get the visa in the first place?)

For the US, small business investor-entrepreneurs typically use an E-2 visa but it is non-immigrant and they need to leave the country when the business stops operating.