Immigration and Entrepreneurship

I realize that immigration is the third rail of our political discourse right now.

But one thing should not be controversial.

Entrepreneurs exist all over the world and if they want to come to the US, hire our citizens, and build large economic engines here in the US, we should welcome them with open arms.

I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with that logic. I am sure someone will. But I still can’t imagine it.

So when I read this yesterday, that the Dept of Homeland Security wants to end the International Entrepreneur Rule, it made me angry.

This is economic suicide.

In service of what?


Comments (Archived):

  1. jason wright

    Yes, entrepreneurs do exist all over the world, but the times they are a changing. The world is rapidly becoming fully networked, capital is becoming decentralised, and the opportunity to build something of value from a place outside the US is expanding with every new day. That’s a good thing for the world, but not necessarily for the US, which is the basis of your concern. The twenty first century will not be a copy and paste of the previous one.Time for a Jiu-Jitsu move? Don’t get angry, get smart.Edit 13:33 GMT – I know of Americans who have left the US and come to Europe to achieve their goals in web tech and in life because they felt that their own country had little to offer them.

    1. Lawrence Brass

      How did Brexit affected the UK startup scene?It is still a good place to be to manage Europe operations?

      1. Farhan Lalji

        Still a great place to have a global HQ, you can have your dev team distributed and have BD / investment and other functions in London or elsewhere in the UK with limited impact. Brexit is helping other countries grow and offer an alternative, but for now, UK still is great for new cos.

      2. jason wright

        When we finally get to know what Brexit will look like…It depends on how the state decides it wants to reshape itself as a newly independent nation. There could be a very unfortunate confluence of timing as web tech begins to hollow out the middle of the labour market. I may emigrate.

        1. JLM

          .Move to Texas, we speak a similar, though not exactly the same, language.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. jason wright

            Irish citizenship is my first target, but i will check my Texan bloodline.

    2. BillMcNeely

      “I know of Americans who have left the US and come to Europe to achieve their goals in web tech and in life”Insert Africa and Middle East for me. I actually felt more free career wise in these places. Probably because there are less people with my skill set and I feel more valued. Because of that I am given more freedom to makes decisions and maneuver.

  2. bijan

    Its not based on some thoughtful economic policy. Rather likely, it is some calculated political analysis that it will play well with the MAGA base. This admin and congressional leadership continues to choose party over country.

    1. Pointsandfigures

      Yes, but if you are honest with yourself and policy, the last President wasn’t too concerned about others either (and immigration has been screwed up for years). Gary Becker has the best policy: charge for it. It’s genius

      1. WA

        Selling the rights to immigrate definitely has advantages in effecting long-term commitments to the country, as well as “filtering in” those who most have had previous ROI in their investment in themselves on the human capital level. Do you think the quandary might be…since education is something other nation-states invest in as human capital by paying for their citizens schooling…that some of the brightest that would emigrate still might not be able to afford way into the US?

        1. Pointsandfigures

          No. Right now, thousands of international students want to come here to study. Usually they come from wealthy families abroad. If they get a STEM degree or a business degree, along with graduated degrees-don’t we want them to stay here? Human capital is the best capital. I’d rather drain the human capital away from other countries and let them make motherboards.If you think about Coase Theorem, there are lots of permutations that can happen with Gary Becker’s idea. It’s the best one I have seen and the most objective. Quotas are always gamed.

          1. WA

            Reading on Coase now for reference…Thank you. In complete agreement on retention of human capital and quotas being gamed. Was more the philosophical question from an equality stand point as to my quandary…

          2. LE

            thousands of international students want to come here to studyThis is a really complex issue. What those students have done those is two things at the same time. The pay full freight tuition so in theory they help lower the cost for US students (good). But that extra money also allows the Universities to spend like drunken sailors whereby if the money ever stopped flowing (as they are whining now) and the party ends we have a much higher cost basis at schools.Not to mention that foreign and highly motivated students also take away opportunity (no question) from own own students by ironically raising the bar.I think I remember you played basketball in college? (Am I right?) . What if at that time there had been a ton of 7 foot 5 people from other countries. Think you would have had the same benefits and opportunities? Not saying we shouldn’t let some big guys in but if you look at the makeup of the school that I went to now vs. back when I graduated it’s very clear there are spots being taken up by high achieving people from overseas. Some of this is good but there does need to be limits to keep opportunity for those born here.

          3. Pointsandfigures

            If there were better basketball players that could beat me, then the coach should have selected them. Competition is great. I had a friend who was a high school All-America. He picked Kentucky. He played but not as much as he would have since they recruited Sam Bowie and Mel Turpin. Same goes for international players. Bring them. Elevate everyone’s game.

          4. LE

            If there were better basketball players that could beat me, then the coach should have selected them.Sure that might be good for the school and for the alumni who care about their team winning but it’s not good for the guy who is a US citizen who didn’t make the cut. That is my point. It removes opportunity for people born here who quite frankly should be first in line.Taken to an extreme there is very likely enough people in the world of higher caliber (you have billions to select from) and motivation than those in the US to be able to take every single slot in our schools or for that matter entrepreneurial opportunities. Nobody thinks that there shouldn’t be some people that are allowed here (or that it benefits us (sure it does) or raises the game if sports). But there is no question that limits are needed it’s only a matter of where the line is drawn.And try telling the high school kid that doesn’t get a slot because he isn’t as good as some kid from overseas who took it.

          5. Pointsandfigures

            If you are a competitor, you want to compete. Where they come from doesn’t make a difference. Athletics is kind of a bad comparison because it’s about physical and mental advantage-structural things don’t get in the way. By your logic, I should have played in the NBA but clearly I wasn’t good enough. I could read the bottom of Doc Rivers Converse All Stars when he jumped over me.

    2. JLM

      .Bit shallow and knee jerk comment, no?The entire discussion about entrepreneurial immigration in the US is a one trick pony, serving only those with a stake in the subject. The NVCA doesn’t represent or even look like America – no harm, no foul there; they shouldn’t. But as arbiters of good policy – pfffft!The EB-2 National Interest Waiver – a law passed by Congress – subsumes everything that is contained in the International Entrepreneur Rule – a rule passed by Executive Order in the last 48 hours of the Obama administration.In fact, it is much broader as it applies to those who have a special skill but are not founders, entrepreneurs, CEOs, investors.Beyond the red meat sophistry of building The Wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, there is not much the MAGA crowd really wants to understand about H1-B visas or the EB-2 National Interest Waiver, let alone the IE Rule.They are concerned about the economy – their little slice of it, anyway – and on that score Trump’s results are convincing.To suggest that anyone is picking “party” over country is nonsense. There are no parties.Candidate Trump destroyed the Republican party. HRC destroyed the Democrat party.Trump vanquished the GOPe, the Republican primary candidates, the Bush Republicans, the DEMe, the Clintonistas, HRC, the pundits, the pollsters, the MSM, the wise guys, and everyone else who KNEW he would never get the nomination, let alone the Presidency.Now, there are only Trump supporters and Trump detractors. If the media didn’t have Trump, they would sit there silently.The IE Rule is just not good policy, duplicative, and a one-trick lobbyist ridden pony.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  3. Pointsandfigures

    Blogged about the same thing and had a similar reaction. Immigration is politicized in the US and it wasn’t any better in the past. This change by a faceless bureaucratic agency isn’t helping.

  4. JLM

    .Any entrepreneur may apply for an EB-2 National Interest Waiver which allows someone with an advanced degree or an exceptional skill (entrepreneur) to obtain a PERMANENT worker status in the US.…The IE Rule is a temporary program which limits a qualified entrepreneur to 30 months with a single 30 month extension. It has an inherent problem in that it is a “parole” meaning one cannot piggy back the pursuit of a permanent worker status while in the country on an IE Rule temporary parole.One would have to leave the country to pursue a permanent arrangement. The permanent arrangement they are likely to pursue? You guessed it — EB-2 National Interest Waiver.This is a well known issue.Virtually the same criteria which are used to establish an EB-2 National Interest Waiver are used to apply for an IE Rule parole.The IE Rule requires the entrepreneur to have an existing business. While the EB-2 National Interest Waiver allows for a startup in a very early phase of development. EB-2 is more generous than the IE Rule.Both programs are authorized on a case-by-case basis, but the EB-2 National Interest Waiver is a “normal” program and its success rate is much higher.This is much ado about nothing.To get into the political weeds a bit — the IE Rule is a RULE meaning it is based solely on an Executive Order. The EB-2 National Interest Waiver is a law meaning it was passed by Congress and no President can unilaterally change it.The DHS is doing the right thing here — forcing the Congress to get off its ass and pass laws, just like DACA. When President Trump set out a deadline for Congress to deal with DACA by cancelling the Executive Order, he didn’t ban anything. He simply told Congress: “Do your damn job. Pass immigration laws and change the system.”If you want to channel your anger, send Chuck Schumer a letter and tell him to get off his ass and support immigration reform.The reform is taking shape nicely — merit based, no chain migration, no anchor babies, DACA legalized, no sanctuary cities, money for The Wall. The Dems don’t want to give the Republicans an immigration victory on the eve of the mid-terms.One more thing — there will absolutely be an AMNESTY for existing illegals. Count on it.BTW, there is no immigration attorney with more than two weeks experience who doesn’t know about the EB-2 National Interest Waiver. It is a very well known program. The US is NOT preventing entrepreneurs who create jobs from coming here. That is total political spin and baloney.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. BillMcNeely

      How big does a business or idea have to be a National Interest? We are in a $19.2B Economy representing 25% of the world’s GDP. I would think it takes a lot to make a dent thus qualifying for the visa.

      1. JLM

        .The following thresholds are contained in various rules and laws:1. For capital investment, $250,000;2. For revenue to prove up success, $500,000 gross revenue annually;3. For jobs, five total jobs including the founders.These are not the high hurdles.To put that in perspective, there are 5,830,000 “companies” in the US, not including professions.Of those, 89.4% have fewer than 20 workers.Of those, 99.7% have fewer than 500 employees.We are a nation of shopkeepers and small business persons.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Chimpwithcans

          There’s something reassuring about this comment (if the stats are true). Where did you get the figures? I would like to investigate the same for South Africa’s economy.

          1. JLM

            .I made the stats up.OK, #1-3, they’re in the actual IE Rule.Google the balance of them.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    2. Lawrence Brass

      What are the practical restrictions of not having a proper visa for a foreign owner of a DE incorporated company?

      1. JLM

        .None that I know of.Immigration deals with personal work status while a corporation is stock ownership. There is no restriction on the ownership of American corporations (stock ownership) by foreigners.There are IRS withholding rules when profits are being sent overseas. In general, there is a 30% hold back to ensure payment of taxes. That is, purely, an income tax issue for foreigners.As an aside, many states have regulatory requirements which force a parent company to operate through “domestic” corporations. When doing business in South Carolina, as an example, I had to form a SC corp to hold the stock in another SC corp which held a license. Small potatoes.This also happens to be able to segregate state income for state income tax purposes. It is cleaner that way.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    3. LE

      forcing the Congress to get off its ass and pass laws, just like DACA. When President Trump set out a deadline for Congress to deal with DACA by cancelling the Executive Order, he didn’t ban anything. He simply told Congress: “Do your damn job. Pass immigration laws and change the system.”This is exactly true. And actually not even reading your comment or knowing much at all about this I came to the same conclusion by this sentence from the linked proposal which I read first in full:…created a complex and highly-structured program that was best established by the legislative process rather than relying on an unorthodox use of the Secretary’s authority to “temporarily” parole, in a categorical way, aliens based on “significant public benefit”.

      1. JLM

        .The sum total of that Memorandum is the equivalent of a legal foot fault.The rule promulgating agency failed to provide the required notice. There is no merit to the argument other than that DHS failed to follow the rules.DHS screwed up.Politics in Washington, DC? Shocking.The IE Rule is a weak sister of the EB-2 National Interest Waiver.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Richard

          According to what I’m reading, a total of 10 application were submitted under this program. One can make arguments for and against, but Fred’s call of “economic suiside” appears to be self-serving.

          1. JLM

            .I read somewhere that not a single person has ever availed themselves of IE Rule. Ever.It does not feel like economic suicide to me.Just “Trump Bad” confirmation bias.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          2. JamesHRH


  5. Grace Schroeder

    In service of our Lord, Spite.

  6. Tom Labus

    Why’d did they call it “parole”. Jesus

    1. JLM

      .”Parole” is a term of the immigration legal art. It means “temporary” admission to the US as opposed to “permanent” admission.This is the outgrowth of the 2016 “startup visa” initiative which went nowhere in Congress because the Congress turned a blind eye toward immigration.The International Entrepreneur Rule was passed by the Obama administration 48 hours before the inauguration of President Trump. It was always going to be repealed like all the last minute stuff that was pushed out the door at the last minute.The DHS failed to provide a period of public comment to rescind the rule. They were hauled to Court and a Judge found for the plaintiff on summary judgment because the DHS failed to provide a period of public comment.This is much ado about nothing.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. Pointsandfigures

        It does bring up the point that something constructive needs to be done. One of the reasons Trump was elected was Obama’s poor record on immigration. He needs to start proposing constructive ways to fix the system. Tearing down only goes so far. I think he will get there but he has to face off with Big Govt types in his own party first.

        1. JLM

          .There are two issues at play here — illegal immigration and legal immigration.Something is being done on illegal immigration — ICE is enforcing the law.Perhaps as many as 2MM persons have been deported, the backlog of deportations is being whittled away, more Judges, more Border Patrol staffing, the National Guard at the border, the Wall is being built subject to very tepid funding, the issue of sanctuary cities is being dealt with, MS-13 is under the microscope, criminals are being deported.Laws – existing laws – are starting to be enforced.The issue of legal immigration is in play — merit v lottery, chain migration, anchor babies, HB-1/2 visas, DACA.There will be a Reaganesque general amnesty. Count on it.The structure of the deal is out there, but the Dems are not about to move on this before the mid-terms.President Trump is probably the only leader pragmatic enough to get this done.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  7. goldwerger

    I read this excellent piece on immigration last night which I recommended.Immigration is a moral issue first and foremost (and an economic no brainer to top).We wouldn’t be here (or alive) if our immigrating ancestors were met with today’s “first world” ill-hearted immigration policies:

    1. DJL

      So people have a moral right to move to the most successful economies and those economies have a moral right to accept them, legal or not?Don’t forget that the US was built on LEGAL immigration. The US media (like CNN) has to confuse legal and illegal to make their points. I have never met one person who is opposed to legal immigration.

      1. goldwerger

        Yes, because the US doesn’t make it possible for 99% of refugees that escape poverty, or worse persecution, to come here. Would should be is us making it easy to come here legally, and then demanding everyone follow due process. But when you make it impossible for people to legally immigrate, and they have no choice but to immigrate to create a better life for themselves, then it breaks down. We don’t deserve the life we got here, we just got lucky being born into it. Everyone has the same right as human being for happiness.

        1. DJL

          “We don’t deserve the life we got here, we just got lucky being born into it.” That is a sad statement. My ancestors fought, bled and died to preserve our country and make the place everyone wants to be. (Did you miss Memorial Day?)Everyone has a right to happiness. But no one else is required to give it to them. That is the difference between Liberalism and Conservatism in one issue.

          1. goldwerger

            Your ancestors fought for this ideals of this country – freedom, liberty, and basically the right to live fulfilled and happy. Country isn’t an ideal in itself, it is a representation of ideals and the framework which enabled it. What makes this country great are its values, and what will destroy this country is the erosion of those values.

        2. LE

          and they have no choice but to immigrate to create a better life for themselves, then it breaks down.What in the world are you talking about? There are billions of people in the world who would deserve a better life. We can’t support all of them or even 10 percent of them in one fell swoop.We don’t deserve the life we got here, we just got lucky being born into it. Everyone has the same right as human being for happiness.So what? Go take your own money and do what you want with it to help anyone and everyone you want. Don’t take money that is not yours for social policy that matters to you and might not matter to someone else.There are plenty of people that aren’t as lucky as, for example, Fred. I am sure he does not want you deciding how he should help them and to what degree. I simply can’t understand the thought process here honestly.

          1. goldwerger

            This is not about money, but about universal values of liberty and freedom. A country is not a value of itself, it represents a framework that lets people live in shared values. If anyone else wants to join our community and share in our values, we have no reason – and in my opinion justification – to say they cannot be an equally contributing person to our community (no matter the level of their contribution). That aside, since you are momentarily inclined, like Fred I believe immigrants are a huge force for economic growth – these are the people that have the most to lose, and therefore willing to risk the most, and work hardest to build new lives. Look at the top companies in tech today, half of them were built by immigrants. If social values don’t resonate, economic logic will do equally. In both cases, open immigration policy is both morally just and economically desirable.

        3. JLM

          .Monday was Memorial Day.Some of us fought to protect and deserve our better lives. Some others died for us.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. goldwerger

            They died for our values. If anyone shares our beliefs and values, I’d welcome them with open arms in our society (just as our ancestors were welcomed before us). I also fought in another army in another country, and I am now a proud member of this country and society, as I share in its values. These values are universal not bureaucratic. Our ancestors fought for our right to live a free and happy life. Borders exist where we choose to erect them, not just in the physical world. I would rather live in a world with openness, then be closed in.

  8. Jordan Jacobs

    Your loss is our gain. Policies like this are helping to slow/reverse the brain drain from Canada and make it a first choice for entrepreneurial tech immigrants. Alongside other developments like doubling down on leading AI research at the Vector Institute in Toronto, MILA in Montreal and AMII in Edmonton, we have a 2 week process to obtain a visa for tech workers that has begun to reverse the trend of software engineers departing on graduation, and resulted in a “brain gain” in AI. Thank you from your friends north of the border.

  9. Odile Beniflah

    Thank you. I don’t have the data but I know that a huge number of Meetup organizers are immigrants. Those are the people creating innovation hubs and creating job opportunities in their city. They should not be just tolerated but celebrated.

  10. DJL

    My guess it that it became some bureaucratic nightmare (like most government programs) that was then abused for special interests (like most government programs).”DHS concluded that the IE Final Rule created a complex and highly-structured program that was best established by the legislative process rather than relying on an unorthodox use of the Secretary’s authority to “temporarily” parole, in a categorical way, aliens based on “significant public benefit”.Isn’t “economic suicide” a little strong here? Seriously, how many jobs have been created with this program. Just don’t see the crisis in this one. There are plenty of other programs.

    1. JLM

      .Whoa, Big Fellow.The International Entrepreneur Rule was published 48 hours before the inauguration of President Trump. The Obama admin had 8 years to do something on the issue, made a half-hearted attempt to pass a “startup visa” law in 2016, and this was what was left on their desk as Trump took over.It has never been used though DHS was forced to print the applicable forms.It is a RULE authorized by an Executive Order enacted at the last minutes of a prior admin.This is a total smokescreen.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. DJL

        So it created a total of 0 jobs because it was never implemented.

        1. JLM

          .Even the Obama admin never said it would create more than 2000 jobs (entrepreneurs) annually. The NVCA said it would create 3000 jobs per year.It has created ZERO jobs thus far.It is a case-by-case, temporary authorization – parole – for entrepreneurs while the EB-2 National Interest Waiver applies to anybody with a critical skill.Which one would an entrepreneur apply for? A permanent work program or a temporary one?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      2. sigmaalgebra

        Wow!!! Actual information!! Thanks for cleaning up that nonsense!

  11. PhilipSugar

    For anybody opposed, you first and foremost have to understand this is a marketing issue.I know that sounds like I am ignoring the issue. But I am not.When you want the best people what do you do? Spit in their face or tell them they are beautiful.Believe me having the best people helps you. Period.Now the same goes for those that start making comments like notes. Same thing. Now you get people that say what???I know it’s hard because you think I have to oppose with all of my might.CNN is going to get the Republicans to keep the House of Representatives. Mark my words. They would not have a chance without mainstream media.

    1. JLM

      .It is a total head fake. The International Entrepreneur Rule was based on an Executive Order, not Congressional legislation.It was passed 48 hours before President Trump took office. Yes, that’s right.It was such a burning issue that it was left until the last two days of an 8 year term to enact.This is the outgrowth of the unsuccessful 2016 Startup Visa program which crashed and burned in Congress.It is a total head fake and a perfect example of virtue signalling. There is no there there.As you say — total marketing.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. PhilipSugar

        Yup, and killing it is bad marketing. Trump of all people should know this.I know that his stance on the wall was let me go hard and then we’ll get to the middle.And the people that oppose him have taken the same stance. “I’d rather have my daughter marry a MS-13 member than a Trump” Seriously??

        1. JLM

          .They actually don’t have to kill it. It is purely discretionary.Just like the issue of foreign visas. Have you looked at the number of Syrian visas approved in 2017? I think it was 18.President Trump didn’t need the Travel Ban, he had complete control by exercise of who gets an approved visa.The big difference is that Candidate Trump was all-in on The Wall during the election. I loved the “Mexico will pay for it” shtick — one of the best bluffs in the history of politics.But, the MS-13 thing is now. I think Nancy P may be a Republican plant.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. PhilipSugar

            She might be. Hell, I think the Republicans pick up 25 seats because people literally hate her so much they don’t want to see her have any power.

          2. JLM

            .The Republicans have 54 seats, currently, in which they gave up an incumbent advantage thereby throwing the seat into an open race.They could lose the House, but I think they hold it by a whisker.The Republicans pick up seats in the Senate.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          3. PhilipSugar

            Sorry, I don’t mean add to their seats. I mean keep an extra 25 just because of her.

          4. JLM

            .I understood you.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          5. sigmaalgebra

            Nancy is a sad case. She’s a perfect model for the cared for, spoiled, anxiety ridden, hysterical, emotions out of control, irrational, irresponsible, ditsy bimbo. A lot of such women end up being the crazy aunt alone in a basement. Not all women are like that, not even very many women are like that, but Nancy is not the only one.

        2. LE

          Yup, and killing it is bad marketing. Trump of all people should know this.Bad marketing is fine as long as you use it as a bargaining chip to get someone else you want. Not only that but it gives your opponent cover for kow-towing to something that you want that their base won’t let them give you. That is the art of politics in a nutshell. It’s trading favors. Also playing on invented issues. One of the reasons it has broken down is because it has become vastly more difficult with the 24 hour news cycle and vast amount of media out there. Was much easier in the olden days.What your opponent says to you – “I will agree to X if you agree to Y”.What you tell others: Umm, he says “He will only agree to X if we agree to Y”. <— So yes this you tell people you need to convince. And then they feel better about giving something up because they have gotten something in return.There is always an ulterior motive behind what people do (at this level anyway). If something doesn’t make sense there is probably something you don’t know about it. [1] I am not surprised that most people aren’t devious enough to see through what is happening.One other thing about the President. Someone good at this changes their game kind of like seeding encryption. So it’s really difficult to predict exactly what the motive is because it can literally be seemingly random. Thinking that some people aren’t better at it (Trump) than others or that you can learn this by reading something or listening to a talking head on the TV is like thinking you can read and play a few games and be a chess master btw.[1] And I hate that expression ‘fool at the table’ to no end. It’s one of those trite phrases that is of no value and really only means ‘be carefull’ (duh thanks).

      2. JoeK

        What are you talking about JLM – did you read the background of the rule? It was not left until two days before to ‘enact’, you are referring to when it was published in the Federal Register. The rule was opened up for public comments in Aug 2016, and it was clearly drafted well before that. As to why the process was not started in January 2009 when the Dow was at 9k, unemployment over 8% , and AWS quarterly revenues were <$50M – I’m sure that there were other administrative priorities higher than the startup thing.I’m not arguing for or against the rule, but making the point that your argument against it should be objective and not based on spin.

        1. JLM

          .The startup visa idea has been around since at least as long as the H1B visa was enacted in the 1990 Immigration Act. It was “tinkered” with by Geo HW Bush, Bill Clinton, Geo W Bush, and Pres Obama.Remember the H1B is a work visa program which was passed into law by Congress while the International Entrepreneur Rule is an Executive Order signed by President Obama when he couldn’t get any traction in the Congress in 2016.No rule becomes law until it is published in the Federal Register.The IE Rule was the subject of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) notification going back to prior administrations.There are, literally, thousands of rules which are proposed but never see the light of day. Proposed rules receive thousands of comments and usually no changes are made.This particular rule had no hearings (hearings are not mandatory) and was deemed not to be a “major” rule.Rulemaking rules are clear, but complicated. This is a pretty good read of the process.https://www.foreffectivegov…The facts stand as follows:1. The IE Rule has never been employed contrary to the blog post’s implications. The Trump admin failed to post its proposed recission properly and a Court struck down its recission rule. They have since done it correctly.2. The Rule was enacted, subject to its publication in the Federal Register as you correctly note, 48 hours before the Trump inauguration.3. Because it was not a “major” rule, the Congress had no 60 day period in which to rescind the rule.4. The Trump admin thinks the rule is redundant as it relates to EB-2 National Interest Waiver which is a LAW not a rule.I like a little spin, but there isn’t much room in these facts. Still, “Trump bad.”JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. JoeK

            That’s a better way to make your point. I still think the 48 hours is a red herring and is completely irrelevant – if it is a bad rule, it does not matter whether it was enacted 48, or 48,000 hours before.As to why the rule is being removed, which is probably Fred’s original point, it is not because EB-2 exists. As the DHS website clearly points out’DHS concluded that the IE Final Rule created a complex and highly-structured program that was best established by the legislative process rather than relying on an unorthodox use of the Secretary’s authority to “temporarily” parole, in a categorical way, aliens based on “significant public benefit”. … DHS is committed to reviewing all existing employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant visa programs to ensure program integrity and protect the interests of U.S. investors and workers’The rule is not being removed because the EB category exists. EB confers permanent immigration status, and we all know what the Trump position is on green cards and chain migration. Call a spade a spade. I would assume that Fred’s issue is that he sees value in the program above and beyond the current EB option, and DHS is scrapping the program without proposing an alternative that has comparable convenience. There is nothing wrong with requiring that of them.

          2. JLM

            .Actually, in the lawsuit, it was DHS’s testimony that the rule was redundant of a number of relevant programs.Remember, the lawsuit was solely about the DHS violating the notice requirement for rulemaking, not the merits of the rule itself.The Obama administration stuck a lot of rules in the Federal Register after the election and before the Inauguration, something which is frowned upon.Because the rule was not a “major” rule, the US Congress could not exercise its 60 day authority to rescind it.The Trump admin has no particular position on green cards that I am aware of. A green card is an authority to be legally in the US subject to a specific program. It is documentation like a driver’s license.Chain migration is an unfettered abomination whereby the admission of an individual in a wholly vetted process gives rise to a flood of relatives piling on with a lower level of vetting.There is no way Freddie could see or measure value in the program. It has never been implemented. There are no successes even now.The DHS will rescind the program, this time complying with the notice provision I suspect.There never was and there never will be a program and no successes.Trump bad.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          3. JoeK

            The National Venture Capital Association filed a lawsuit in Federal court to stop DHS from taking steps to avoid acting on the rule. So clearly someone like Fred may see value in the program.There are no successes even now? How could there be? Are you expecting a unicorn to emerge 12 months after the first visa is granted? What would your definition of success be and how would you measure it?You don’t get to unilaterally eliminate published regulations without allowing stakeholders to object, that’s not how America works. hence the lawsuits. which is why DHS is proposing, for the third time, to remove the rule, and has not just done it. And as for the chain migration dog whistle, I am assuming that you are equally vexed about the President’s family having benefited from it?

          4. JLM

            .The NVCA lawsuit supported a summary judgement application which they prevailed upon. Their complaint was that the DHS failed to comply with the Federal rulemaking notice requirement.The DHS was originally asking to delay implementation so they could write a recission.It was a foot fault.DHS did fail to comply with the notification provisions. Bad on them.They will correct their error and rescind the rule correctly.Just to be clear. The Obama admin passed the rule 48 hours before Trump took office. The Trump DHS applied to delay the implementation of the rule so it could write a recission of the rule.The Trump DHS lost at trial on a summary judgment on their effort to delay the implementation of the rule. The NVCA won that case.Now, the DHS has filed to rescind the rule.The IE Rule is not a success — Hell, it’s not even a thing — because nobody has ever received permission under its auspices.It is totally discretionary on a case-by-case basis.Do you think an agency which has announced its intentions to rescind a rule is going to be approving applications under that rule?I am against the notion of chain migration. Period. I don’t care who it applies to. Rules are rules.JLM

          5. JoeK

            You’re going in circles. Of course no one has ever received permission (despite applications having been received), because the agency is trying to end the rule, and therefore is not making decisions on them. So, its not a success because DHS has refused to implement it, and so DHS should get to rescind it because it is not a success? The NVCA arguing the technicality is for legal purposes, of course they want to see the rule maintained, hence their lobbying to get it instituted in the first place.And of course you had to say ‘rules are rules’ to explain why you are against the rules that lead to this chain thing that you are against. Circular.

          6. JLM

            .What about the Trump administration rescinding an Obama admin rule is a surprise to you?These are not laws passed by Congress. They are rules promulgated by Executive Order.The IE Rule has never been implemented. It is not going to be implemented. Even if it were implemented, the DHS has complete discretion on a case-by-case basis to approve or disapprove every single application.What is hard to understand about the rules apply to everyone? Chain migration is a bad idea even if Melania is related to quintuplets who are better looking than her.Wait just a damn second…………………JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          7. JoeK

            It is not a surprise. Fred, and the NVCA, are stating that they believe that applying the rule will bring benefits to the United States. They lobbied for the rule, and it is not unreasonable that they expect a better reason to get rid of it than, ‘because Obama did it’. The reason I brought this up was to make it clear, Trump is getting rid of it to protect America’s workers, and the NVCA feel that it does the opposite. How about arguing the merits of that instead?You seem to have an issue with the rules applying to everybody. Because what you call chain migration, is the DHS applying the law in making making decisions on admission. It is the law, not some administrators in middle Eastern embassies sneaking immigrants into the United States. Hence it sounds totally ridiculous to me that you would say it is a bad idea, in part because, the rules should apply to everyone. If fact, they do, which is why, as a US citizen, you get to apply for your parents, spouses, or young children, to enter the United States without limit whether you were born in Slovenia or Peru. It is the law, which you are clearly very fond of. Argue against it on its merits, not on some vague fears.

          8. JLM

            .We seem to be separated by a common language.Freddie said it would be “economic suicide” if we didn’t maintain this rule. Typical, mythology based hyperbole. I called bullshit on that as we have an existing program which provides the identical benefit.In fact, I am very much in favor of enlightened, merit based immigration. I even think that if a foreigner is educated in this country in a STEM subject, we should make a special provision to retain his presence.I am in favor of anything which strengthens the gene pool as long as it does not unfairly supplant American citizens. I am not in favor of using immigration to lower the cost of software engineers in SV. I don’t take much notice of what the NVCA bunch thinks about immigration policy.I think chain migration as we do it today is nuts. I also think a lottery based system is nuts. I see them as being opposed to a truly merit based immigration policy.There are plenty of laws which I oppose, but I favor changing the law, not simply ignoring it or picking which laws one likes.Chain migration — which has been in the mix since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — used to mean a social pattern of people coming from the same town in a foreign country and settling in the same town in the US.As used today, it means a single lottery winning immigrant being able to sponsor all of his blood relatives (some by means of transfusion).You brought up the “rules apply to everyone” with a snide reference to Melania Knavs Trump and her status. The policy point has nothing to do with Trump or politics – it is immigration policy.Strengthen the gene pool. Create tax payers.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          9. sigmaalgebra

            “Strengthen the gene pool”? The claim is that our immigration over the past 300 years already did that. You mean that somehow we need to do that again?Uh, if want to talk genes, eugenics, breeding, master race, Übermensch, then how come we’re going to get so much of “the right stuff” from countries that have shown how good their genes are by having per capita annual income less than 10% of ours?Okay, okay, I know: That the fact that getting to the US means passing through a filter of determination means they have better genes. Some people might believe this; I don’t.STEM field genes? Okay, lets put some money in the pot and then show our cards, that is, our Math SAT scores. Bring’m on, from Hungary, Germany, Poland, Israel, Russia, China, Japan, anywhere you want — I’m ready. Uh, I’ll never lose by much.STEM field education? I hold a STEM field Ph.D. from one of the world’s best research universities, and that’s tough to beat anywhere in the world, in any of the countries I named and more.A big test in the STEM field is peer reviewed publications in good journals. Well, my last paper was in an Elsevier journal, fully international. I was in competition with the world and won — paper accepted right away.And I’m a native born US citizen.

    2. kidmercury

      this is the sad part, trump is so easy to beat, all you need is a non-establishment shill to run against him and the nytimes/cnn/wash post to STFU. instead we have the opposite….smh

      1. PhilipSugar

        So agree.

  12. Val Tsanev

    I believe the whole anti-immigrants stand by the Trump administration is wrong, some of his other policies I agree with (e.g. less regulation, lower corporate tax rate). Making it difficult for entrepreneurs in any shape or form to build a business in the US makes no sense. Immigrants have created companies that have added billions of dollars to GDP and have created as Trump likes to say hundreds of thousands of jobs for many Americans. Here are the facts, which tend to be very stubborn things:1. Sergey Brin (Moscow, Russia) Google would not have existed if it was not for that immigrant2. Elon Musk (Pretoria, South Africa) Tesla, SpaceX would not have existed3. Peter Thiel (Frankfurt, Germany) PayPal would not have existed4. Jan Klum (Kiev, Ukraine) WhatsApp would not have existed5. Arianna Huffington (Athens, Greece) The Huffington Post would not have existed6. Vinod Khosla (New Delhi, India) Microsystems would not have existed7. Max Levchin (Kiev, Ukraine) PayPal would not have existedand the list goes on and on and on. So next time you vote for anti-immigration government remember how many Americans are employed by the above firms thanks to their immigrant founders. November is coming and this nation has a choice to make, as a famous person likes to say “let’s see what happens”…

    1. JLM

      .Would it be unseemly to note that every one of the persons you noted is in the country legally and none of them relied upon the International Entrepreneur Rule which was enacted by the Obama admin 48 hours before the Trump admin took over?If our system is so bad, how did they do it? It wasn’t the IE Rule.We have two immigration issues at play here — illegal immigration and legal immigration.It is fair to say that the Trump admin is anti-illegal immigration, but I suggest that the same label cannot be placed on an admin which has publicly stated its support for merit based immigration v lottery based immigration, an admin which has offered to shelter 2MM DACA immigrants if only the Congress would get off its posterior.The Trump admin is in favor of higher levels of merit based immigration while simultaneously doing away with the lottery, chain migration, anchor babies.Trump = no illegal immigration.Trump = higher levels of merit based immigration, DACA fix.When the President’s political opposition says they would prefer their daughters marry an MS-13 member than a Republican, President Trump will win this debate.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. PhilipSugar

        Everyone wanted desperately to come. That is not the case now. Sorry, I don’t know how many tech immigrants you employee, for me it is more than a handful. I can tell you the sentiment, no different than telling you the sentiment out here in the country before the last election.

        1. LE

          I don’t fault you for this but you have to realize that you are not doing your (for lack of a better way to put it) ‘fiduciary duty’ as a US Citizen (and Fred is not either) if you are simply looking at it from the lens of what it does for you and your own company.This does not mean you are wrong and it does not mean that things shouldn’t be different. But the fact that you with your own eyes has benefit from tech immigrants (all upside?) does not equate to the fact that the policy is better for the rest of the country and for others. Once again not saying it isn’t but your own upside can’t really be considered and in fact is not arms length).

          1. PhilipSugar

            They are legal immigrants that pay taxes and are on their way to citizenship.They improve the talent pool of the U.S.Without them I would probably be forced to move some work overseas.So many companies do. They will develop software, it can be here or in their own country. And when they grow and start a company it can be here or in their own country.Now if you say I am un-American for outsourcing jobs, or do the hire people to be here for 1 day less than six months, pay them shit and have them all hole up in a crappy apartment…….I’d agree.

          2. LE

            Now if you say I am un-American for outsourcing jobsI would never say anything like that to anyone. Simply not the way that I speak. I operate in my own self interest almost always. I would never try to get someone to change their behavior by stating some ideal like that. I would give other reasons to change behavior by some simplistic ideal would not be the way. ‘be a good citizen’ to me that is a lame coop on the persuader’s part.I would do the same thing and was honestly primed by what Fred was saying and transferred it to what you said (probably incorrectly).

          3. PhilipSugar

            We should make it in your self interest to not out-source jobs.The post by Tom Evslin points this out. I like Tom Evslin. He is a free thinker.One of my favorite things was when he ran IT for the DMV he made it a policy that they process everything by the end of the next business day. People said this would be too expensive. But he pointed out that they could get rid of the call center, tracking systems, etc. Just say: You put your application in Monday. We won’t take a call until Wednesday morning.

      2. Val Tsanev

        I agree on legal vs. illegal but you are missing the main point when the current President calls Mexicans rapists, immigrants “animals” etc, etc, etc you have to realize that the future LEGAL immigrants will also think twice before they consider the USA as their new home. If this insanely offensive rhetoric against illegal immigrants continues, and btw not all illegal immigrants are rapists and MS-13 killers, actually the vast majority are as hard working and decent people as you and I are, no LEGAL immigrants will be interested in coming to the US. The future Elon Musk will stay in South Africa, the future Sergey Brin will stay in Russia and create the next Google there vs. here. All this discussion about merit based immigration has a ton of issues as well. When Elon Musk came to this country he was nothing exceptional and had no real “merits” or Sergey Brin for that matter they were just immigrants that came to this country to look for a better future at that point no one had any idea these people will ever create these transformative companies. For God’s sake Jan Klum before founding WhatsApp was using food stamps to buy food, did he have merits to become a legal immigrant in the US?

        1. JLM

          .Val, throw me a paragraph break from time to time. Very hard to read. Thanks.The US has been notorious for its historic lack of welcome to immigrants since the days of the Boston “No Irish Need Apply” days.Just prior to WWII, we turned away shiploads of Jewish immigrants, sending some of them to their death. Today is, comparatively, a walk in the park.Living in a border state as I do, I see no cessation in those entering the country illegally and the legal lotteries including the H1B visa are at all time highs. All time highs.So, the notion there is a lack of desire to come here does not seem to be fact based.President Trump has not been in office long enough to see the impact on the pipeline for legal immigration which is an indictment of the length of the process more than his utterances.Clearly, President Trump has his dagger out for illegal southern immigration coming across the Mexican border. The Wall? It isn’t being built on the Canadian border, eh?There is no high tech immigration coming from Mexico. Mexico knows how to operate in the US and with the US – witness the maquiladora plants and NAFTA.In a global economy, it will not really matter where entrepreneurs operate from if they can access our market via the Internet. Before those words hit the floor, I, personally, would like all the employment in the US for selfish reasons.Your argument is indicted by the actual facts — the folks you cite DID, in fact, come legally.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. Val Tsanev

            Petitions for H1B (it’s H1B no HB1) have dropped by c.60K from last year and most definitely H1Bs are NOT at all time highs as per the below official source by USCIS. “legal lotteries including the HB-1 visa are at all time highs. All time highs.” as per below your assumption is proven wrong and not fact based unless you want to argue with the ultimate source for visas, the USCIS. You are clearly a huge supporter of the Trump administration and there is nothing wrong with that but you have to stick to the facts, we are all entitled to our opinions but we are not entitled to present those opinions as facts.

          2. JLM

            .You are correct. I was looking at 2016 numbers. I didn’t see the 2017 numbers yet. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.Still, we continue to receive many more applications for H1B visas than are granted, no?They were at an all time high in 2016 as you note.Remember that H1B visa applications are made by employers.I am not particularly a “supporter” of the Trump admin. I figured out in 2016 he was going to win.I am a huge supporter of good policy and, thus far, on the whole, Monsieur Trump has been delivering on good policy and keeping his campaign promises.Personally? Meh.I see him as the chemotherapy we need.http://themusingsofthebigre…JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          3. Val Tsanev

            I totally agree with your statement “I see him as the chemotherapy we need”

          4. Val Tsanev

            So JLM what is your prediction for 2020? Do you think DJT will be re-elected?

          5. JLM

            .It is a million years until 2020. There are a lot of landmines out there for The Donald. I have a very bad feeling about Mueller.I have a good feeling about NK, but it is going to be a long haul with them.If current trajectory continues, he wins in an enormous landslide.But, again, it’s a million years until 2020.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          6. sigmaalgebra

            IMHO, Mueller is a tool and a fool. His work has nothing important to do with law. Instead Mueller is just stirring up headlines trying to help Democrats win in 2018, maybe win the House, use some Mueller report for a bill of impeachment, which will fail in the Senate, ….On anything having to do with law, Mueller has nothing. If he had anything and was a real man, then he would have done something real by now.He has nothing, doesn’t want to do anything real, and just wants to keep up the headlines as long as he can.The only legally significant aspect to the Mueller nonsense is that as long as he has the headlines, Trump and Sessions are reluctant to prosecute the real criminals, Comey, Lynch, Obama, Hillary, etc. for fear of people seeing such prosecutions signs that Trump was guilty as Mueller has claimed. So, Mueller effectively, at least for now, is a Teflon coated Kevlar overcoat for Hillary, Obama, etc. Sad that we can’t go after the real criminals.Net, I see Mueller as no threat to Trump. Instead, the voters are seeing Mueller as just a rabid dog with the result HIGHER poll numbers for Trump.For Trump’s chances in 2018, look at his accomplishments and projects in progress and then watch his recent Nashville rally; I believe the Rs will gain seats in both houses.Once Trump has some more seats in both houses, he will be able to do MUCH more in his second two years and be WAY ahead for 2020. In particular, who the heck could hope to beat Trump in 2020?

        2. sigmaalgebra

          > the current President calls Mexicans rapists, immigrants “animals” etc,He didn’t. You omitted his word “some”. And what he said about some of them being rapists, animals, is fully correct. And IIRC if look at some Ann Coulter writing, it’s clear that the illegal immigrants are MUCH more likely to be criminals.> The future Elon Musk will stay in South Africa, the future Sergey Brin will stay in Russia and create the next Google there vs. here.Musk is about to bite the dust as his engineering fails and his subsidies dry up. For Brin, etc., lots of people can do search engines as well as Google has done. E.g., from all I can see, Bing is as good as Google. Clearly the US would have good Internet search engines even if Brin stayed in Russia.

      3. Rick Mason

        I will even go further, I know of only one significant tech company started by an illegal immigrant. Who was the company started by an illegal immigrant?Borland Software started by Frenchman Phillipe Kahn. Story goes he got the company ready to go public before he took care of his immigration problem. Surely there must be a few more companies but they are definitely in the minority. But Progessives love to conflate legal immigrants in their examples with illegal ones.

    2. Richard

      Agree but think of it another way, Tesla doesn’t exist with the United States, PayPal doesn’t exist without the United States …..

    3. sigmaalgebra

      You are claiming that somehow current US citizens are deficient, incompetent, and need to depend on immigrants for jobs and economic growth. I claim that’s nonsense.

  13. Gustavo Melo

    It’d be interesting to build a system that indexes political “news” sites and keeps track of information lineage, I.e. where and when did a certain claim begin to be spread online, and then analyzes and traces back people’s comments online to their claims’ original source. I think a lot of commenters would be surprised at the shady non-news sources that are influencing their comments. There’s a lot of stuff being said in threads like this one that is just pure propaganda with no factual basis. Can’t we automate or expedite the process of detecting and exposing that?

    1. sigmaalgebra

      High school term paper writing standards have long since emphasized the importance of primary references. With primary references, the problem is solved.

  14. Angelo Santinelli

    Interesting thread. Regardless of what the Rule says or does not say, or when it was enacted, it sends the wrong message to people who desire to bring their knowledge, work-ethic and desire to become an American. Immigrants founded it, fought for it, built it and have run it for more than 300 hundred years. Some brought unique skills. Some came with just the shirts on their backs. All have contributed to its growth and development in big and small ways. The question shold not be about who gets to come and stay for whatever period of time based upon their academic credentials. The tent should be big. The issue is allowing people to enter through legal means and allowing them to “take their shot.” The path to citizenship should be clear, simple and faster than it is today. We processed a lot more people at the turn of the last century than we do today. How did the process become so broken and politicized.

    1. JLM

      .Annual naturalized citizens at 1900 were fewer than 50,000 annually. Remember, a legal immigrant never has to become a naturalized citizen.https://www.migrationpolicy…To put that in perspective, we currently process less than 1,000,000 naturalized citizens having only exceeded 1,000,000 twice in our history.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. Angelo Santinelli

        immigartion between 1890 and the first decade of the 1900s jumped from 3.5 million to 9…The choice to become a citizen is indeed theirs. I have family members who have lived here for the majority of their lives who have elected to not become citizens. They arrived by boat in 1954 and have followed the laws to be here legally and have contributed positively in their communities. My only point is that we can and should do a better job of allowing all who want to come here legally, work and be productive members of American society to do so. Should they desire to take the path to citizenship, it should be clear and concise.

        1. JLM

          .I read your comment to be addressing “naturalized” citizens, not immigrants.The pace of immigration to the US was driven not by US needs but by famine, war, and oppression overseas.The Irish, the Eastern European Jews came because of oppression in their home countries.When that happens, you cannot meter it, can’t slow it down.That was the driving force. We didn’t have quotas until 1924 when they were set at 2% of that existing nationality in the US as of the 1890 Census.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        2. sigmaalgebra

          > should do a better job of allowing all who want to come here legallyWhy “should”? I totally disagree. Instead, except for a few exceptional people, maybe a few hundred a year total, just shut the door.Current US citizens have all the votes and can vote whatever the heck they want on immigration. My vote is shut the door. There’s no “should” keep the door open.

  15. aminTorres

    I came late to this post today, read it, and the first thing that came to my mind before expanding the comments was: “JLM is going to be all over this.” Comments load… boom!.

  16. sigmaalgebra

    Here is the rock solid, blunt, nasty, politically incorrect, flush the BS, take the fancy clothes off the monster: US citizens, wake up because for essentially ALL immigration to the US there is one basic reason, and that reason is that some powerful people want cheaper labor by lowering the market value of the labor of US citizens. Period.Now, let’s see:(1) There is a claim that the immigrants are highly skilled, have skills not available in the US. So, those skills are in C++, Windows, versions of Unix, Intel/AMD microprocessors, Cisco routers, TCP/IP, Excel, … nearly all of which were invented, where, right, Virginia, in the good ol’ US of A.(2) There is a claim that the immigrants have better educations. Hmm, interesting situation. The unique, all-time champion, unchallenged, world-class, 900 pound gorilla in higher education, especially in STEM fields, is the, and may I have the envelope, please [drum roll], right, from Harvard to Cal Tech, from Gainesville to Seattle, Chicago to Austin, Baltimore to Palo Alto, Berkeley, Princeton, New Haven, Ithaca, Manhattan, Pittsburgh, Ann Arbor, and many more, the good ol’ US of A.So, we have three cases:(i) The immigrant got their education in England, France, Germany, Austria, Canada, Japan, Israel, etc. and have precious little reason to want to come to the US.(ii) They got their education in some, uh, I don’t want to be ugly about it, but …, well, …, don’t really call it an education. Yes, Virginia, it really is that bad.(iii) They are here, nearly always from a poor country, to get an education in a US university. Hmm …. Let’s see: The tuition might be ballpark $40,000 a year. Then there is room, board, clothes, medical care, a computer, books, supplies, fees, and transportation to the US. And they are from a poor country where the whole family was living on, what, less than $10,000 a year. Sooooo, no genius is needed to conclude that they have financial aid.And that financial aid comes from, three guesses and the first two don’t count — the US Federal Government from taxes of US citizens, right, US citizens already struggling to pay for college education for their OWN (big, really big, big, bad, bummer) children.So, to be clear here, the US citizens get taxed to pay for the education of some child from a poor country, an education the US citizens have to struggle to afford for their own children, to graduate the foreign student in competition with the children of those very same tax paying US citizens. We’re talking screw job, rip off, flim flam fraud scam, theft, sabotage, very dirty pool.So, how’d we come to this? Okay, during the Cold War and the Space Race, lots of powerful people screamed that the US was short on STEM field students. Moreover, the students that were available were getting paid too much, e.g., maybe even enough to buy a house and support a family. Horrors!!!!!These powerful people had politicians tell the US NSF to fix the problem, this massive US national security problem.So, presto, bingo the US NSF wrote into research grant contracts that so many foreign students needed to be supported. So, right, the NSF, the politicians, and the powerful people all just ignored the fact that the MONEY, the big bucks and the crown jewels of US STEM field world leadership, was coming from ripped off, fooled, deluded, etc. US tax paying citizens.And that’s the scam, the ONLY reason, students from the poor countries have any hope of a US education.Bummer. Outrage.For educated labor and all labor, immigration boils down JUST to undercutting the earnings of US citizens.No informed US citizen would put up with this rip off scam.For US citizens, the solution is simple: Flatly STOP essentially all immigration. Period. The US can tell essentially everyone who would want to come to the US: “We don’t know just what you’ve got, but we don’t need it.”Okay, if some world class guy in some field wants into the US, fine — there are plenty of means.But world class guys are down under 1% of the immigrants we’re talking about. For the 99+%, we’re talking about just an old story, slavery. The powerful people want a readily identifiable, exploited, laboring underclass.We fought a war over slavery. Currently we’re fighting another one, so far mostly non-violent. But it’s a war: The powerful people are pushing HARD and have Pelosi, Schumer, Ryan, McConnell, and nearly all the mainstream media dancing on the ends of the powerful’s puppet strings.E.g., that’s JUST what the Mueller scam is about: The scam is not about law at all but just to bring down Trump, at least his poll numbers, …, and maybe drive him from office, and the main reason is that Trump is a threat to the slavers. It’s Trump’s positions on the slavery that (i) got Trump elected by VOTING US CITIZENS and (ii) has the slavers attacking Trump on Twitter, comedy shows, news shows, street demonstrations, Facebook, bought and and paid for politicians, etc.Alas, the solution is simple, just dirt simple, and overwhelmingly powerful: The US citizens who are being ripped off just vote for Trump’s immigration policies in 2018 and 2020. Done. Finished. Over with. A stake through the heart of the slaver monsters. Just pull a lever in a voting booth.Arguments of the slavers: (i) The US is a country of immigrants. (ii) Immigrants built the US. (iii) Thus, the people already in the US, who BUILT the US or are descendants of people who did, are not good enough and the US NEEDS the immigrants. (iv) Diversity is the main strength of the US; for the needed diversity, the US should have lots of immigrants. (v) The immigrants are smarter, better educated, and harder working than US citizens. (vi) The US is a compassionate country and is morally obligated to open its country, schools, universities, health care centers, … welfare system to immigrants. (vii) The immigrants are so superior that US families should be PROUD, and working in their OWN interest, to use their money NOT for the education of their own children but for the immigrants!!!Uh, Virginia, when you hear such specious, red herring, off the subject, tangential, groundless, meaningless, outrageously insulting, emotional pleas, you are being the subject of nasty slaver propaganda.Simple. Slavery is a very old story, and now with us again, no matter what Sunday School costume they put on it.

  17. Pete Griffiths


  18. JLM

    .Well played on the basis of linking “Russian asset”, “Nazi propaganda”, and “Mueller” in a two sentence comment on an immigration topic.I think that earns a 10X word count in Scrabble?Well played.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  19. jason wright