There has been one exception to the second Trump administration’s efforts to reduce and discourage immigration of all forms and shapes: its so-called “gold card” proposal.
As President Trump said when he announced the proposal on February 25: “We’re going to be selling a gold card. You have a green card. This is a gold card. We’re going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that’s going to give you green card privileges, plus it’s going to be a route to citizenship [as a green card is]. And wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card.”
He also said that sales of the cards would begin in about two weeks. That did not happen, and there is not much clarity around other specifics of the proposal either. But that ought not keep us from speculating a bit about benefits and downsides of establishing a program along these lines.
First, the benefits. The gold card program would add a much-needed, straightforward path — albeit a very expensive one — to permanent residency to America’s labyrinthian immigration system.
The gold card program would add a much-needed, straightforward path — albeit a very expensive one — to permanent residency to America’s labyrinthian immigration system.
As an illustration, consider the program that is closest in spirit to the gold card, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The EB-5 program provides a pathway to permanent residency (and ultimately citizenship) for immigrants who invest at least $1.8 million in the U.S. (or $900,000 in certain rural and high-unemployment areas) and create or preserve at least ten full-time jobs. If these conditions continue to be met after two years, the immigrant investor becomes eligible for a green card. This is a much more laborious and uncertain process than simply paying a fee, though the fee is significantly higher and, unlike an EB-5 investment, cannot be recouped.
An immigrant admitted with a gold card would produce all of the upside we usually associate with immigration: the immigrant himself benefits, and so do his relatives, business associates, employees, employers, etc. The typical immigrant admitted in this way will likely also add to America’s potential for innovation and business dynamism and have a positive fiscal impact.
The program would generate revenue from fees as well. How much is a difficult question to answer, but I am not particularly optimistic. Potential immigrants who can part ways with $5 million are likely very wealthy individuals whose income is mostly capital income. If they are free to travel to the U.S. but are not interested in working here year-round, like most European and Japanese citizens, the added benefit of permanent residency is not that clear.
It is difficult to imagine the gold visa scheme would generate more than single-digit billions in annual revenue. After all, to hit $10 billion — less than 1 percent of our budget deficit — we would need 2,000 buyers per year.
For comparison, Malta introduced a gold visa type scheme (at a much lower price point and with a more straightforward path to citizenship) in 2014. In the first five years of the program’s existence, 833 investors and 2,109 family members obtained Maltese citizenship (and with that, EU citizenship), most typically people from Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China. That is, the program attracted a few hundred investors per year, and a similar program in Cyprus attracted another 150 or so each year. Based on that experience, it is difficult to imagine the gold visa scheme would generate more than single-digit billions in annual revenue. After all, to hit $10 billion — less than 1 percent of our budget deficit — we would need 2,000 buyers per year.
There are downsides to a program like this as well. It may be seen as unfair to create a special path to citizenship for very rich foreigners, especially at a time when migration has been made more difficult for everyone else. Cyprus has also had to revoke the citizenship of hundreds of golden visa purchasers when they turned out to be unsavory types like fugitive Malaysian financier Jho Low.
Overall, it may be worth creating a new visa program along these lines. But I wouldn’t expect it to have a meaningful impact on our enormous budget deficit, and we would have to be on the lookout for crooks and oligarchs.
Stan Veuger is a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.