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

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

The Hill07-03-2025

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal appeals court refuses to lift ruling halting mass layoffs at Department of Education
Federal appeals court refuses to lift ruling halting mass layoffs at Department of Education

CNN

time17 minutes ago

  • CNN

Federal appeals court refuses to lift ruling halting mass layoffs at Department of Education

A federal appeals court declined on Wednesday to lift a judge's ruling that blocked the Trump administration from effectively shutting down the Department of Education. The unanimous decision from the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals is another significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, whose efforts to rapidly shrink the federal government – including through dismantling entire agencies – have been tied up in numerous court challenges. Cutting the Department of Education has been of particular interest to Trump in his second term. Earlier this year, he moved ahead with mass layoffs at the agency, which is tasked with distributing federal aid to schools, managing federal aid for college students and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws. The administration, 1st Circuit Chief Judge David Barron wrote for the panel, has not 'shown that the public's interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be unlawfully disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions.' The court also said that the administration had not demonstrated that it was likely to ultimately win in the case, with Barron writing that Justice Department attorneys had not put forth evidence showing how the widespread layoffs at the department would not prevent it from carrying out its core functions. Last month, US District Judge Myong Joun of the federal court in Boston indefinitely halted Trump's plans to dismantle the agency and ordered the administration to reinstate employees who had been fired en masse. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by a teachers' union, school districts, states and education groups. Noting that the department 'cannot be shut down without Congress's approval,' Joun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said that the planned layoffs at the agency 'will likely cripple' it. 'The record abundantly reveals that Defendants' true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute,' he wrote in the 88-page ruling. Attorneys for the Department of Justice quickly asked the Boston-based appeals court to pause Joun's ruling while they appealed it, writing in court papers that it 'represents an extraordinary incursion on the Executive Branch's authority to manage its workforce.' 'Beyond that, it requires the government to indefinitely retain and pay employees whose services it no longer requires, and the government cannot recoup those salaries if it prevails on appeal,' the DOJ attorneys wrote.

Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project
Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is 'no viable path' to complete even a partial section of the line. Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion. In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for 'a 119-mile track to nowhere.' After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency 'has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Feeley wrote. State officials defended what's known as the nation's largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it's not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it's withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time. Carol Dahmen, the state authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and 'do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.' Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line. State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated. State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that 'commonsense has prevailed" and urged the Legislature's dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects. 'Let's stop wasting California's hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' Strickland said. There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line. California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment. President Donald Trump said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. 'That train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen,' Trump told reporters at the time, calling it "totally out of control.' Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio

Donald Trump's World Is 'Fracturing,' Former Giuliani Associate Warns
Donald Trump's World Is 'Fracturing,' Former Giuliani Associate Warns

Newsweek

time21 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's World Is 'Fracturing,' Former Giuliani Associate Warns

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, is warning that President Donald Trump's world is "fracturing" amid Elon Musk's rebuke of his sweeping spending bill and other recent policy moves. Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment on Wednesday. Why It Matters The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a key avenue for Republicans to advance the White House's agenda following the widespread GOP victories in the November election. Key Republican holdouts in the House and Senate have voiced opposition to the bill, citing concerns that it would increase the national debt, among other worries. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday, former Department of Government Efficiency chief Musk bashed the piece of legislation, saying, "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." Musk doubled down in another X post on Wednesday: "A new spending bill should be drafted that doesn't massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by 5 TRILLION DOLLARS." What To Know In a Substack article published on Wednesday, Parnas mentioned Musk's recent shift against the president's beloved legislation. "I've been warning you for months now — there are real cracks forming inside Trump's world. And not just little disagreements behind the scenes," Parnas wrote. "The latest — and loudest — break came from Elon Musk." Parnas said that Musk was "paraded around the White House" in the first few months of Trump's second term, but the Tesla billionaire is no longer "playing" along. The former Giuliani associate is a Ukrainian American businessman who was convicted in 2021 of fraud and campaign finance crimes. He was then sentenced to 20 months in prison. "I've seen how this works from the inside," Parnas wrote. "When loyalty turns to silence, and silence turns to defiance — it's over. The myth of Trump's control starts to collapse." "But Elon is just the loudest crack. The truth is, Trump's empire is fracturing on every front," he added. Parnas went on to note that policy decisions, such as tariffs, praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the acceptance of a Qatari airliner, are also causing cracks in Trump's world. "And I'm telling you now: the very foundation of Trump's power — fear and obedience — is crumbling," Parnas wrote. "Elon might be the first to break publicly, but he won't be the last. There are lawmakers. There are donors. There are insiders. I promise you, they are rattled. And some of them are looking for a way out." Lev Parnas testifies during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing on March 20, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Lev Parnas testifies during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing on March 20, 2024, in Washington, People Are Saying President Donald Trump, Monday on Truth Social: "So many false statements are being made about 'THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,' but what nobody understands is that it's the single biggest Spending Cut in History, by far! But there will be NO CUTS to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid." Trump continued: "In fact, they will be saved from the incompetence of the Democrats. The Democrats, who have totally lost their confidence and their way, are saying whatever comes to mind — Anything to win! They suffered the Greatest Humiliation in the History of Politics, and they're desperate to get back on their game, but they won't be able to do that because their Policies are so bad, in fact, they would lead to the Destruction of our Country, and almost did." The president concluded, "The only 'cutting' we will do is for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, something that should have been done by the Incompetent, Radical Left Democrats for the last four years, but wasn't." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday: "Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion." What Happens Next Trump has set a deadline for Senate Republicans to pass the bill and have it on his desk before July 4. It is unclear whether Republican senators will garner enough votes to get it done.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store