Though not a historically well-known fact, in 1990 Congress effectively put a price on American residency: $500,000 and the creation of 10 jobs. At least that’s what is implied by its EB-5 Program, which exchanges foreign investment for immigrant visas.
With the program’s popularity escalating rapidly, the U.S. government must carefully observe it — and possibly reign it in — to ensure the immigration of the wealthy is not occurring at the expense of poorer migrants, some of whom ought to be classified as refugees.
American investors, including some in Charlotte, have used this program as a carrot to attract foreign capital. But when foreign investors gain legal status, they are cutting the line ahead of potential migrants who stand to gain far more from legal U.S. residency.
Aside from this obvious ethical problem, it is clear that all parties involved could benefit from a fairer approach.
In developing countries like the Philippines — which is also a strategic U.S. ally in Asia — remittances sent by overseas workers to families back home normally account for a relatively significant share of national income.
An even more direct influence on the American economy is also the conveniently overlooked fact that robust immigration will keep the U.S. labor force far younger than those in Europe and Japan.
If the U.S. is still a city upon a hill — or ever was one — the government must place a priority on allowing immigrants from modest backgrounds to legally enter and work in the country. The U.S. has both a moral responsibility and an economic impetus to do so.
