Press Release

Golden visa programs are both coveted and criticized. Governments offer golden visa programs as a means to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), stimulate economic growth, and enhance their global competitiveness. These programs, often referred to as investor or golden visa schemes, offer residency or citizenship in exchange for a significant financial contribution to the host country. Even though these programs offer vast economical benefits for the host country, many criticize them as discriminatory immigration schemes abused by wealthy individuals.

As a U.S. attorney with over a decade of experience in dealing with the EB-5 program, the golden visa equivalent for immigration to the United States, I’ve witnessed that successful golden visa programs must walk a fine line between attracting investment and ensuring the integrity of immigration systems.

Over the past few years, many governments have scrapped or altered their golden visa schemes. For instance, Australia recently suspended its Significant Investor or golden visa program, under which foreigners were able to secure residency by investing more than A$5 million ($3.3 million) in the country. The Australian government announced that this decision is part of a broader immigration policy overhaul aimed at attracting skilled migrants to better serve Australia’s interests.

The Minister of Home Affairs of Australia, Clare O’Neil, criticized the country’s golden visa program as delivering poor economic outcomes. Other Australian politicians criticized the country’s Significant Investor Visa as allowing corrupt officials to park illicit funds. These are among some of the concerns that governments have when it comes to their golden visa programs. Other concerns are that funds do not sufficiently contribute to the productive sectors of the economy.

Another example of a country scrapping its golden visa program is Portugal. Last year, Portugal announced that it would end its Residence Permit for Investment or golden visa program to tackle the housing crisis caused by inflated prices. But not everyone in Portugal was on board with this decision, including the Portuguese Association of Residential Tourism and Resorts (APR). According to APR, the end of the golden visa program will be “devastating for tourism and for investment in tourism products in Portugal.”

While some countries are halting their golden visa programs, the United States is embracing the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program and its beneficial effects for the U.S. economy. The EB-5 program, the U.S. golden visa equivalent, was established by the U.S. government in 1990 with the goal of promoting economic growth through job creation and the injection of foreign capital. Foreigners can obtain the U.S. golden visa by investing $800,000 in a new commercial enterprise in the United States that must create or maintain at least ten-full time jobs for U.S. persons. With this investment, the main applicant and qualifying family members including spouse and children under the age of 21 can obtain U.S. residency and Green Cards.

Comparing Australia’s now-suspended golden visa program to the U.S. golden visa reveals key differences. While both programs aim to attract foreign investment for residency, the EB-5 program mandates job creation as a prerequisite for obtaining a golden visa. Investors in the EB-5 program must contribute to the creation of a minimum of ten full-time jobs for U.S. persons. Investors are not allowed to make a passive investment in real estate or in the stock market. This mandate ensures that the foreign investment has a direct impact on employment and economic growth.

So which is the better option? Scrap the golden visa or embrace its benefits while having specific mandates in place? As the largest economy in the world, the United States is embracing its golden visa. To protect its own interests, the U.S. immigration office has stringent rules on the source of funds used for the $800,000 investment and conducts a thorough review of each investor’s petition prior to approval. Each investor must be able to show that their capital originates from lawful sources and can be legally traced. To efficiently allocate and benefit from the capital injection, the government has recently begun prioritizing investors that invest in certain areas of the country, such as high unemployment or rural areas. These measures allow the U.S. government to safeguard its economic interests and maintain the integrity of its golden visa program.

In the ever-evolving landscape of global immigration policies, the dual nature of golden visa programs remains a topic of debate. While these initiatives present a tempting avenue for attracting foreign investment and fostering economic growth, the scrutiny and criticisms they face underscore the need for careful consideration. The recent suspension of Australia’s golden visa program and the ongoing success of the U.S. EB-5 program serve as contrasting examples of governmental responses to the challenges posed by such initiatives.

As countries grapple with the balance between economic incentives and potential pitfalls, the need for a nuanced approach to golden visa programs becomes increasingly evident. Striking a balance that safeguards against abuse, ensures economic benefits, and aligns with broader immigration goals is crucial for governments navigating this complex terrain. As some nations pivot away from these programs, others may find inspiration in the U.S. model, emphasizing stringent regulations, job creation mandates, and a strategic approach to regional development. In this intricate balancing act between opportunity and critique, the future of golden visa programs worldwide hinges on the ability of governments to learn from diverse experiences and sculpt policies that truly serve the interests of their nations.