Trump’s immigration ‘gold card’ could be a huge winner — with these changes

President Trump announced a new immigration program last month under which prospective immigrants will be able to buy a “gold card” for $5 million to immigrate legally to the U.S. The new visa would replace the current EB-5 visa, known as the “investor visa,” and provide a path to citizenship. The president wants to use the revenue to pay off the country’s deficit.

The concept of a “gold card” is a good idea that could help streamline this country’s Kafkaesque immigration system and provide a source of revenue, along with boosting the many widely known benefits of immigration. But to be a true win for America, the price tag needs to change to open up the program to a larger number of productive newcomers.

Legal considerations aside — Trump claims he doesn’t need Congress to enact this change, which is questionable — a “gold card” program could potentially remove some of the many bureaucratic barriers to immigration. The current “investor visa,” which among other things requires a minimum investment in American companies of between $800,000 and $1.05 million, is complex, slow and inefficient. This program grants around 10,000 visas every year to investors and their families. While many aspects of the new “gold card” program remain unclear, it would likely be much more straightforward, potentially requiring only the initial payment and the thorough background check already conducted on all prospective immigrants. It would also purportedly be uncapped, so theoretically more than 10,000 beneficiaries could use the program each year.

The $5 million price tag, however, is unrealistic. Few people are going to be able to afford it, and the cost makes the program less attractive even to wealthy individuals. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explained in an interview that the new program would be “significantly less attractive to highly wealthy individuals than the [investor visa], under which not only is the amount lower, but investors get back their investment once a green card is approved.”

Furthermore, Bier said that the president’s expectations that companies would pay $5 million to bring in top talent is also unrealistic. “No company would pay $5 million for a green card for any worker. They can’t make $5 million on many, if any, workers.” He highlighted that green card holders, and likely potential “gold card” holders, can go to a different company whenever they want, as legal residency is not tied to a specific job offer.

With a $5 million cost, it’s unlikely that many individuals would take up the offer. Thus, replacing the investor visa with the less affordable “gold card” may, in turn, have the effect of reducing legal immigration instead of expanding it. The roughly 10,000 yearly beneficiaries of the investor visa may not be able to afford the new price and thus stop coming.

The Trump administration should improve on their idea, adjusting the cost of the “gold card” according to factors such as age and level of education and skill. In a 2019 policy analysis, Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh detailed the many options to set the rate of such a program, including considerations like the forgoing of government benefits. Many of those options could be considered when setting a more realistic and reasonable cost that would allow more productive workers to come to America.

As conceived right now, the “gold card” program does not address border security. But it could. If the cost of the visa is adjusted, many of the people who cross the border illegally would stop doing so in favor of purchasing a legal way into the country. Such people already spend a lot of money to come to America — the cartel-controlled immigration black market forces them to pay tens of thousands of dollars to human smugglers and other such characters to cross the border. If immigrants could use that money to pay the U.S. government instead, they would likely opt to enter legally. These people would be thoroughly vetted, just like any other legal immigrant, in the process. This approach would lead to fewer migrants massing at the border, more security vetting of those coming in, more revenue and fewer cartel victims.

A streamlined program would also attract highly specialized professionals — such as scientists, engineers and doctors — who currently don’t move to the U.S. due to restrictive immigration rules. More specialized workers would boost innovation and fill crucial jobs that keep Americans healthy and safe, while providing new opportunities to the beneficiaries as well.

Details of the “gold card” program remain unclear, and it is yet to be seen if it will actually be implemented. As the concept stands now, David Bier predicts that it will be “a little used part of the U.S. immigration system.”

But the administration has the kernel of a good idea. If modified, the “gold card” is an easy sell to the American public, as it would allow well-meaning, productive people to pay to come here and work, increase revenue and benefit American employers, all while reducing illegal immigration and undermining the cartels. It would be a win for everybody.

Ultimately, America’s entire immigration system needs to be reconceived, but a carefully structured gold card program could be a way to improve the current system for Americans and immigrants alike.

Agustina Vergara Cid, LL.B. and LL.M, is a Young Voices contributor and an associate fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. Her opinions do not necessarily reflect those of any institution.