WEBVTT - White House Decision on Entrepreneur Rule Draws Ire (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.320
<v Speaker 1>There's another Obama era rule that the Trump administration is

0:00:03.400 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>moving to delay and repeal. It's called the International Entrepreneur Rule,

0:00:07.600 --> 0:00:10.119
<v Speaker 1>and it would allow foreign born start up founders to

0:00:10.160 --> 0:00:12.440
<v Speaker 1>stay in the US for up to thirty months if

0:00:12.480 --> 0:00:16.119
<v Speaker 1>they meet certain requirements, including showing they had raised at

0:00:16.200 --> 0:00:20.079
<v Speaker 1>least two hundred fifty thousand dollars from American investors or

0:00:20.120 --> 0:00:23.720
<v Speaker 1>one hundred thousand dollars in grants from government entities. The

0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 1>Trump administration's move to rescind the rule is based on

0:00:27.040 --> 0:00:31.360
<v Speaker 1>border security grounds and likely faces litigation from several fronts.

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:36.400
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is MICHAELA Ross, a reporter for Bloomberg b NA. MICHAELA.

0:00:36.479 --> 0:00:40.560
<v Speaker 1>This rule has a lot of backing from business organizations

0:00:40.600 --> 0:00:45.480
<v Speaker 1>and particularly the tech sector. Tell me about it. Yes,

0:00:45.560 --> 0:00:48.080
<v Speaker 1>the tech sector was very excited to see this rule

0:00:48.080 --> 0:00:50.920
<v Speaker 1>when it was the drafts first announced last summer, and

0:00:50.960 --> 0:00:53.519
<v Speaker 1>it would finalized in the last minute, last days of

0:00:53.560 --> 0:00:56.440
<v Speaker 1>the Obama administration, and they were looking forward to its

0:00:56.440 --> 0:00:59.200
<v Speaker 1>effective date, which was to come next week July seventeenth.

0:00:59.280 --> 0:01:02.760
<v Speaker 1>But what the reason the tech sector is so excited

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:05.160
<v Speaker 1>about this is they have a long history of um

0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:09.360
<v Speaker 1>foreign born founders. You look at Tesla, Google, eBay, this

0:01:09.440 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 1>is UH, this is kind of a prolific group of

0:01:12.760 --> 0:01:16.080
<v Speaker 1>foreign born founders founders here. In fact, a two thousand

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:20.720
<v Speaker 1>twelve Hoffman Foundation study founder forty cent of startup founders

0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:23.920
<v Speaker 1>in Silicon Valley were immigrants. So there was a lot

0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:27.399
<v Speaker 1>of excitements UM the tech front also UM the venture

0:01:27.440 --> 0:01:31.319
<v Speaker 1>capital front UH to welcome this new pathway since technically

0:01:31.480 --> 0:01:34.400
<v Speaker 1>right now there is not a clear way for foreign

0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 1>born founders to enter the US. US is not does

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.040
<v Speaker 1>not have what's called the startup visa. In fact, this

0:01:40.200 --> 0:01:42.160
<v Speaker 1>rule was not even going to create a visa. It

0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:46.319
<v Speaker 1>was simply a parole status, which is a permission status UM.

0:01:46.480 --> 0:01:49.560
<v Speaker 1>And so this was one way that the US thoughts

0:01:49.640 --> 0:01:53.160
<v Speaker 1>itself touching up with countries like the UK, Canada, Ireland

0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:55.720
<v Speaker 1>that do have that startup pisa, that clear way for

0:01:55.720 --> 0:01:58.280
<v Speaker 1>foreign born founders to enter. Well, what are the Trump

0:01:58.280 --> 0:02:02.840
<v Speaker 1>administration's objections to the rule, So this really changes on

0:02:03.160 --> 0:02:08.200
<v Speaker 1>the parole status. The International Entrepreneur Rule argued that parole,

0:02:08.320 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 1>which is once again not a visa, It is a

0:02:10.600 --> 0:02:14.160
<v Speaker 1>permission toutory that is granted by the Department of Homeland Security,

0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:17.720
<v Speaker 1>and it's only granted in cases of humanitarian assistance such

0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>as refugees, or in cases what individual could improved significant

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>public benefit. So the rule is saying that these entrepreneurs,

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:29.119
<v Speaker 1>by you know, spurring investments and creating US job growth,

0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:31.800
<v Speaker 1>they would have to prove US job growth creation and

0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:35.600
<v Speaker 1>revenue creation in order to stay longer than those thirty months. Um,

0:02:35.600 --> 0:02:38.600
<v Speaker 1>they're saying that that is a benefit. However, the concern

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:42.079
<v Speaker 1>from the Trump administration is that, Um, they had a

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:45.160
<v Speaker 1>January executive order and in that order that was looking

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 1>to improve border security. They said there's currently a abuse

0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:52.079
<v Speaker 1>of parole in parole status in the US, and they

0:02:52.080 --> 0:02:54.880
<v Speaker 1>want to make sure that this rule is consistent with

0:02:55.000 --> 0:02:58.919
<v Speaker 1>that executive order. They're saying that their argument is that, um,

0:02:59.040 --> 0:03:02.760
<v Speaker 1>this rule opens up parole to a class of people

0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.440
<v Speaker 1>instead of doing it on a case by case basis. Um.

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:08.440
<v Speaker 1>Of course, the opponents of the rule will say that

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:12.920
<v Speaker 1>still each individual entrepreneurity needs to apply, So it is

0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:15.440
<v Speaker 1>case by case, and that's where the argument is coming

0:03:15.440 --> 0:03:18.280
<v Speaker 1>down to, and the move to rescind the rule is

0:03:18.320 --> 0:03:22.120
<v Speaker 1>being heavily criticized. Steve Case, the founder of a o L, tweeted,

0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 1>big mistake. Immigrant entrepreneurs are job makers, not job takers.

0:03:27.440 --> 0:03:30.640
<v Speaker 1>So tell me about what some of the challenges to

0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:35.960
<v Speaker 1>this Trump move might be. We're looking at possible litigation

0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:39.480
<v Speaker 1>from several funds according to administrative attorneys and League An

0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:42.960
<v Speaker 1>Immigration attorneys. So first off is the delay. Now, agencies

0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:45.760
<v Speaker 1>in the past have delayed the effective date of the

0:03:45.840 --> 0:03:48.640
<v Speaker 1>rules against this agency is is saying that it's going

0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:51.080
<v Speaker 1>to the delayed the effect of dates from July seventeen

0:03:51.480 --> 0:03:54.720
<v Speaker 1>until March of two, eighteens with with the aim to

0:03:54.800 --> 0:03:58.480
<v Speaker 1>resond or repeal the rules altogether. Now the delay there

0:03:58.480 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 1>has been delayed in the past if there's a technical reason,

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 1>so for example, of the paperwork for applications wasn't done,

0:04:04.280 --> 0:04:06.360
<v Speaker 1>or there was a technology that hadn't been developed yet,

0:04:06.360 --> 0:04:08.760
<v Speaker 1>but there's still a good sased effort. What we're doing

0:04:08.760 --> 0:04:12.040
<v Speaker 1>from attourneys is that this does not fit that category.

0:04:12.160 --> 0:04:14.520
<v Speaker 1>This is more of a policy ship. The administration is

0:04:14.600 --> 0:04:16.960
<v Speaker 1>thing that we don't like this rule for X, y

0:04:17.040 --> 0:04:20.320
<v Speaker 1>Z reason and so um we are moving to rescind it,

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:22.839
<v Speaker 1>and that is very difficult to do once a rule

0:04:22.880 --> 0:04:25.719
<v Speaker 1>has been finalized, which this rule has them and altneys

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:28.239
<v Speaker 1>are pointing to a recent case that it's very similar.

0:04:28.480 --> 0:04:31.279
<v Speaker 1>Still unduly. Third, UH, you have sort of appealed for

0:04:31.480 --> 0:04:35.400
<v Speaker 1>DC UM had said that the Environmental Protection Agency, the

0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:38.560
<v Speaker 1>e p A, did not have the authority to delay

0:04:38.640 --> 0:04:40.560
<v Speaker 1>the effective date of another rule that had to do

0:04:40.600 --> 0:04:42.960
<v Speaker 1>with methane emissions. So they're saying this is a very

0:04:42.960 --> 0:04:45.919
<v Speaker 1>similar case that this agency, in the case that the

0:04:45.920 --> 0:04:48.479
<v Speaker 1>from the Pomsecurity does not have the authority to delay

0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:51.160
<v Speaker 1>this rule and that it must. It's a weak argument,

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:55.000
<v Speaker 1>um that that it's making. So but the Trump administration

0:04:55.360 --> 0:04:59.360
<v Speaker 1>perhaps some that a case UH learned from UH learn

0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:01.320
<v Speaker 1>from this, and it's saying that while we're going to

0:05:01.480 --> 0:05:03.760
<v Speaker 1>be making a whole new rule making process, and not

0:05:03.800 --> 0:05:06.240
<v Speaker 1>only are we dealing it, we're going to open up

0:05:06.240 --> 0:05:08.640
<v Speaker 1>a whole new rule making process in order to rescind

0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:11.920
<v Speaker 1>this rule and UM. But in order to do that

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:14.800
<v Speaker 1>that also might place for litigation. So what I mean

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:17.840
<v Speaker 1>by that is that this rulemaking process is going to

0:05:18.360 --> 0:05:20.159
<v Speaker 1>their want to examine all the facts. They're going to

0:05:20.200 --> 0:05:22.040
<v Speaker 1>open it up to public comments, They're going to look

0:05:22.080 --> 0:05:23.840
<v Speaker 1>at the law, and they're going to come up with

0:05:23.880 --> 0:05:26.000
<v Speaker 1>a record that says this rule is either an accurate,

0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:29.560
<v Speaker 1>in correct, or outdated, and where litigation to come in

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:31.800
<v Speaker 1>is of opponent to the rule. Thing. You know what,

0:05:32.520 --> 0:05:36.040
<v Speaker 1>that new records and the comp administration is not facturate

0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:38.400
<v Speaker 1>because look at the AGM administration just fit it several

0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:41.599
<v Speaker 1>months before or they initially crafted this rule. What could

0:05:41.640 --> 0:05:44.480
<v Speaker 1>have changed so drastically. So we're seeing the potential for

0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:47.400
<v Speaker 1>litigation at several points and the delay and regal of

0:05:47.440 --> 0:05:50.120
<v Speaker 1>this rule. Well, thank you for that report. We'll be

0:05:50.120 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 1>looking forward to seeing what happens with this rule. That's

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:54.960
<v Speaker 1>Mikhaela Ross. She is a reporter for Bloomberg. Bayanna