Speaker 1: There's another Obama era rule that the Trump administration is
Speaker 1: moving to delay and repeal. It's called the International Entrepreneur Rule,
Speaker 1: and it would allow foreign born start up founders to
Speaker 1: stay in the US for up to thirty months if
Speaker 1: they meet certain requirements, including showing they had raised at
Speaker 1: least two hundred fifty thousand dollars from American investors or
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollars in grants from government entities. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration's move to rescind the rule is based on
Speaker 1: border security grounds and likely faces litigation from several fronts.
Speaker 1: Joining me is MICHAELA Ross, a reporter for Bloomberg b NA. MICHAELA.
Speaker 1: This rule has a lot of backing from business organizations
Speaker 1: and particularly the tech sector. Tell me about it. Yes,
Speaker 1: the tech sector was very excited to see this rule
Speaker 1: when it was the drafts first announced last summer, and
Speaker 1: it would finalized in the last minute, last days of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, and they were looking forward to its
Speaker 1: effective date, which was to come next week July seventeenth.
Speaker 1: But what the reason the tech sector is so excited
Speaker 1: about this is they have a long history of um
Speaker 1: foreign born founders. You look at Tesla, Google, eBay, this
Speaker 1: is UH, this is kind of a prolific group of
Speaker 1: foreign born founders founders here. In fact, a two thousand
Speaker 1: twelve Hoffman Foundation study founder forty cent of startup founders
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley were immigrants. So there was a lot
Speaker 1: of excitements UM the tech front also UM the venture
Speaker 1: capital front UH to welcome this new pathway since technically
Speaker 1: right now there is not a clear way for foreign
Speaker 1: born founders to enter the US. US is not does
Speaker 1: not have what's called the startup visa. In fact, this
Speaker 1: rule was not even going to create a visa. It
Speaker 1: was simply a parole status, which is a permission status UM.
Speaker 1: And so this was one way that the US thoughts
Speaker 1: itself touching up with countries like the UK, Canada, Ireland
Speaker 1: that do have that startup pisa, that clear way for
Speaker 1: foreign born founders to enter. Well, what are the Trump
Speaker 1: administration's objections to the rule, So this really changes on
Speaker 1: the parole status. The International Entrepreneur Rule argued that parole,
Speaker 1: which is once again not a visa, It is a
Speaker 1: permission toutory that is granted by the Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: and it's only granted in cases of humanitarian assistance such
Speaker 1: as refugees, or in cases what individual could improved significant
Speaker 1: public benefit. So the rule is saying that these entrepreneurs,
Speaker 1: by you know, spurring investments and creating US job growth,
Speaker 1: they would have to prove US job growth creation and
Speaker 1: revenue creation in order to stay longer than those thirty months. Um,
Speaker 1: they're saying that that is a benefit. However, the concern
Speaker 1: from the Trump administration is that, Um, they had a
Speaker 1: January executive order and in that order that was looking
Speaker 1: to improve border security. They said there's currently a abuse
Speaker 1: of parole in parole status in the US, and they
Speaker 1: want to make sure that this rule is consistent with
Speaker 1: that executive order. They're saying that their argument is that, um,
Speaker 1: this rule opens up parole to a class of people
Speaker 1: instead of doing it on a case by case basis. Um.
Speaker 1: Of course, the opponents of the rule will say that
Speaker 1: still each individual entrepreneurity needs to apply, So it is
Speaker 1: case by case, and that's where the argument is coming
Speaker 1: down to, and the move to rescind the rule is
Speaker 1: being heavily criticized. Steve Case, the founder of a o L, tweeted,
Speaker 1: big mistake. Immigrant entrepreneurs are job makers, not job takers.
Speaker 1: So tell me about what some of the challenges to
Speaker 1: this Trump move might be. We're looking at possible litigation
Speaker 1: from several funds according to administrative attorneys and League An
Speaker 1: Immigration attorneys. So first off is the delay. Now, agencies
Speaker 1: in the past have delayed the effective date of the
Speaker 1: rules against this agency is is saying that it's going
Speaker 1: to the delayed the effect of dates from July seventeen
Speaker 1: until March of two, eighteens with with the aim to
Speaker 1: resond or repeal the rules altogether. Now the delay there
Speaker 1: has been delayed in the past if there's a technical reason,
Speaker 1: so for example, of the paperwork for applications wasn't done,
Speaker 1: or there was a technology that hadn't been developed yet,
Speaker 1: but there's still a good sased effort. What we're doing
Speaker 1: from attourneys is that this does not fit that category.
Speaker 1: This is more of a policy ship. The administration is
Speaker 1: thing that we don't like this rule for X, y
Speaker 1: Z reason and so um we are moving to rescind it,
Speaker 1: and that is very difficult to do once a rule
Speaker 1: has been finalized, which this rule has them and altneys
Speaker 1: are pointing to a recent case that it's very similar.
Speaker 1: Still unduly. Third, UH, you have sort of appealed for
Speaker 1: DC UM had said that the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Speaker 1: e p A, did not have the authority to delay
Speaker 1: the effective date of another rule that had to do
Speaker 1: with methane emissions. So they're saying this is a very
Speaker 1: similar case that this agency, in the case that the
Speaker 1: from the Pomsecurity does not have the authority to delay
Speaker 1: this rule and that it must. It's a weak argument,
Speaker 1: um that that it's making. So but the Trump administration
Speaker 1: perhaps some that a case UH learned from UH learn
Speaker 1: from this, and it's saying that while we're going to
Speaker 1: be making a whole new rule making process, and not
Speaker 1: only are we dealing it, we're going to open up
Speaker 1: a whole new rule making process in order to rescind
Speaker 1: this rule and UM. But in order to do that
Speaker 1: that also might place for litigation. So what I mean
Speaker 1: by that is that this rulemaking process is going to
Speaker 1: their want to examine all the facts. They're going to
Speaker 1: open it up to public comments, They're going to look
Speaker 1: at the law, and they're going to come up with
Speaker 1: a record that says this rule is either an accurate,
Speaker 1: in correct, or outdated, and where litigation to come in
Speaker 1: is of opponent to the rule. Thing. You know what,
Speaker 1: that new records and the comp administration is not facturate
Speaker 1: because look at the AGM administration just fit it several
Speaker 1: months before or they initially crafted this rule. What could
Speaker 1: have changed so drastically. So we're seeing the potential for
Speaker 1: litigation at several points and the delay and regal of
Speaker 1: this rule. Well, thank you for that report. We'll be
Speaker 1: looking forward to seeing what happens with this rule. That's
Speaker 1: Mikhaela Ross. She is a reporter for Bloomberg. Bayanna