Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons 2.0
As part of its anti-immigrant, economic-nationalist agenda, the Trump administration announced plans in May to rescind an Obama-era rule allowing owners of start-ups to stay in the US for five years. In an attempt to compete with countries like France and Singapore, which have welcomed foreign entrepreneurs, the Obama administration introduced the Immigration Entrepreneur Rule (IER) just days before Trump’s inauguration. The Department of Homeland Security has been delaying the rule since its introduction in January 2017, and now, it seems the agency will repeal the regulation once and for all.
The Rule
If implemented, the IER would permit certain foreign-born entrepreneurs to stay in the US for 30 months. If the business showed a potential for growth, the start-up owners would be granted an additional 30 months. In total, immigrant start-up owners could stay in the US for a total of five years under the IER. In order to prove their potential for growth, business owners would have to show that they had raised at least $250,000 from private investors or $100,000 from governmental agencies.
Obstruction
During the Obama years, Republicans fought Democrats as they attempted to grant people like Tiwari and Srivastava access to so-called start-up visas. As mentioned, other countries have implemented such measures and with great success. Frustrated by Congress’ failure to act, former-president Obama introduced his own International Entrepreneur Rule.
Republican Contradictions
Leon Rodriguez, the former head of ICE under Obama, highlighted the contradictions in Republican criticisms. “It is very entrepreneurial, it is very free market-oriented, and so I think any Republican who is serious about business would have to take this rule seriously,” he said. As it stands, nearly half of startups in the US that have been valued at over $1 billion have been founded by immigrants.
The Administration’s Mission
The Trump administration has been single-mindedly focused on a more stringent immigration program, seeking the prosecution of anyone entering the country illegally and placing families in detention centers in Texas and Pennsylvania. As part of this crack down, the administration has sought to close any perceived loopholes in immigration law.
Mark Krikorian, a conservative commentator who works with the Center for Immigration Studies, has been vocally supportive of the administration, which wants to limit the use of parole as promulgated in the IER. “Parole is supposed to be reserved for short term and emergency purposes,” he said, continuing, “Previous administrations have pushed the envelope on parole, and the Obama administration kicked right through the envelope and claimed that the existence of the parole authority meant that the president could admit anyone.”
At What Cost?
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, people like Vikram Tiwari and Nishant Srivastava, co-founders of Omni, must bide their time in Canada as a xenophobic administration does everything in its power to take away any shred of rights they may have had. This is true despite the fact that Tiwari and Srivastava are two of three co-founders behind an ad data analysis platform being used by at least 140 businesses. These entrepreneurs were able to secure a positive flow of cash just two years after launching their new enterprise, and yet, the president wants to effectively banish them from the US.
Venture Capitalists Unhappy
When the administration first announced its decision to delay the implementation of the rule, the business sector wasn’t thrilled. Bobby Franklin, head of the National Venture Capital Association, spoke out against the proposed rescission: “Today’s announcement is extremely disappointing and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the critical role immigrant entrepreneurs play in growing the next generation of American companies,” he said.
In a tweet, AOL Founder Steve Case lambasted the administration’s decision to delay: ““Big mistake. Immigrant entrepreneurs are job makers, not job takers.”
In sum, the administration appears to be pursuing a policy on the basis of xenophobic principles, while ignoring the potential benefits of the IER.
.jpg){kind=link}