Latest news with #GreenCards
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's foreign students ban was never about terror
The Trump administration has been clear about the motivation for cracking down on foreign students: it is a question of national security. Dozens of foreign students, with valid visas or Green Cards, have been swept up because of their support for pro-Palestinian causes. Deportation proceedings have focused on the power of the secretary of state to decide whether the person's presence on American soil would have 'serious adverse foreign policy consequences'. Last week, the administration took aim at another set of students. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, announced he would 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students, including those with links to the Chinese Communist Party or who were studying sensitive subjects. That idea had been laid out in Project 2025, a blueprint drawn up by conservatives to kickstart Donald Trump's presidency. And it is a familiar strategy. The White House has frequently cited national security powers as the president pushed through new policies and regulations without having to resort to the long-winded and uncertain passage of legislation through Congress. In the same way, Mr Trump and his allies used questions of national security for his 'liberation day' tariffs, ramping up duties on imports. In that case, the tariffs are designed to rebalance what Mr Trump views as unfair trade practices, reduce US dependence on foreign products and to bring manufacturing jobs back home. In the same way, listen closely and Mr Trump and his vice-president have made no secret of their 'America First' plan for universities that goes beyond questions of national security. In the Oval Office last week, Mr Trump suggested a cap on the number of foreign students at Harvard University. 'We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools they can't get in because we have foreign students there,' he said. An estimated 1.1 million students are enrolled at American universities, making the sale of a top-quality education one of the nation's best earners. Those students were worth almost $44 billion to the economy in the 2023 to 24 academic year, according to the Association of International Educators. JD Vance, Mr Trump's vice-president, said any reduction in foreign student numbers offered an opportunity and rejected criticism that it would lead to a brain drain. 'You've heard that criticism in particular as the president has talked about cracking down on foreign student visas and their abuses, but I think that's actually an opportunity for American citizens to really flourish,' he told Newsmax. And his words were echoed by Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and key architect of the president's immigration policy. 'What we can't do is have a system that deprives Americans of an opportunity to contribute to their own country,' he told reporters at the White House last week. Taken together, their words suggest that what started as a crackdown on students supporting Hamas on university campuses, is underpinned by an America First agenda. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
UAE Golden Visa vs Trump's US Golden Visa: Which one is better for you?
As the race for the global elite's loyalty intensifies, two nations have rolled out the red carpet with the same golden promise: permanent residency without strings. On one side is the UAE's well-established Golden Visa scheme—sleek, efficient, and tax-friendly. On the other, Donald Trump's revived version of the EB-5 Investor Visa—controversial, political, but undeniably powerful. So which one is better for high-net-worth individuals, entrepreneurs, and ambitious expats? Let's break it down. 1. The Basics: What Are They Offering? UAE Golden Visa: A renewable 10-year residency permit for investors, professionals, creatives, and property buyers. No need for a local sponsor, with the freedom to live, work, and study across all seven emirates. Trump's Golden Visa (EB-5 Reboot): Under Trump's second term, the EB-5 immigrant investor program has been fast-tracked and rebranded. It now promises Green Cards within 12–18 months for those who invest at least $800,000 in 'Trump-approved' infrastructure or real estate projects. Winner: UAE for flexibility. Trump's version remains tied to specific, government-favoured projects. 2. Real Estate Route: Who Makes It Easier? UAE: Invest Dh2 million (around $545,000) in property—mortgaged or off-plan—and you're eligible. You can co-own, buy under-construction assets, and still apply, provided the developer is government-approved. USA (Trump-era EB-5): Requires a minimum $800,000 in a designated Targeted Employment Area (TEA) or $1.05 million elsewhere. The property must generate at least 10 jobs, directly or indirectly. Winner: UAE. Less red tape, no job creation requirement, and faster processing. 3. Speed and Bureaucracy: Who's Swifter? UAE: Submit your title deed, take a medical test, and get your Emirates ID. The process can take as little as one month via the Dubai REST app or GDRFA. Trump's EB-5: Even with fast-tracking, investors must deal with USCIS scrutiny, job calculations, regional centre audits, and lengthy adjudications. Winner: UAE by a mile. American bureaucracy, even under Trump, is legendary. 4. Lifestyle & Tax: Who Offers a Smoother Ride? UAE: No personal income tax. Safe cities. World-class infrastructure. Direct flights to every major hub. Indian investors especially benefit from cultural proximity and established expat networks. USA: You pay taxes on worldwide income—even if you never live there. But it does come with the soft power of a Green Card , access to elite schools, and future citizenship. Winner: UAE for lifestyle and taxation. USA for long-term power plays. 5. Political Luggage: What's the Catch? UAE: The Golden Visa is technocratic, apolitical, and consistent. It's built to attract value—not votes. Trump's America: The EB-5 reboot is entangled with Trump's brand and MAGA politics. Critics say it's a pay-to-stay programme. Supporters say it's a capitalist filter for immigration. Winner: Depends on your politics. UAE is neutral. Trump's version is America, uncensored. 6. Family & Freedom: Who Wins Here? UAE: Sponsor your spouse, children, and even domestic workers. No residency time requirements—you can stay abroad and retain your visa. USA: Family Green Cards are included, but living outside the US for too long risks re-entry issues. And don't forget the IRS follows you globally. Winner: UAE. More freedom, fewer restrictions. So, Which One Should You Choose? Choose UAE if... You want speed, simplicity, tax advantages, and regional access. Perfect for Indian investors, digital nomads, and Middle East-linked entrepreneurs. Choose Trump's Golden Visa if... You're looking for the long game: US permanent residency, eventual citizenship, and a foothold in the world's most powerful economy—even if it's wrapped in populism and paperwork. Final Word In many ways, the UAE's Golden Visa is what America's EB-5 used to be—before it got bogged down by politics, fraud, and backlog. Trump may have put it back on the map, but the UAE has mastered the formula. The choice, ultimately, isn't just about geography—it's about how much friction you're willing to tolerate for a flag.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
5% tax, 0% sense
Trump's plan to tax money immigrants send home is unfair Donald Trump wants people who live and work in the U.S. but aren't citizens — like people with H-1B visas or Green Cards — to pay a 5% tax when they send money to their families in other countries. That might sound like a small amount, but it could really hurt millions of people. There are over 40 million immigrants in the U.S., and about 1 in 10 are from India. In one year, Indians in the U.S. sent $32 billion back home. Mexicans sent twice as much! If Trump's 5% tax had been in place, Indians would have lost $1.6 billion and Mexicans $3.2 billion. The U.S. might make around $5 billion from this tax — but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Here's why: It's unfair : Immigrants already pay taxes on their earnings. After that, they should be able to use their money however they want — including helping their families. It's expensive already : Sending money to other countries costs money. For example, sending money to India can cost 4% or more in fees. For some places, like Thailand, fees can be as high as 9%. Adding a 5% tax would make it even worse. It might push people to use unsafe ways : If it gets too expensive, people may stop using banks and start using secret ways (called 'hawala') to send money. But these methods are sometimes used to move money for bad things — like drugs or terrorism. It costs more to run than it earns : Even the World Bank says that trying to collect this tax could cost the government more than the money it makes from it. This isn't a new idea. Other places have tried it and haven't made much money. Even Trump tried something similar before and dropped it. It was a bad idea then, and it's still a bad idea now. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
5% rate, 0% sense
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. Trump's tax on remittances hurts US and immigrants Trump wants non-citizens – H-1Bs and Green Cards included – to pay 5% tax on money they send home. That's bad news for over 40mn immigrants, a tenth of whom are Indians. While Indians sent $32bn home from US in 2023-24, Mexicans sent twice as much. With a 5% remittance tax in place, their remittances would have reduced by $1.6bn and $3.2bn, respectively. US would have been richer by around $5bn, but even then this tax is bad policy. For one, it's bad in principle. All immigrants pay some taxes, so Trump shouldn't touch their post-tax income. Secondly, remittances already have high financial costs. Fees for transfers to India range from 0.8% to 10.8%, and the average is over 4%. Transfer fees for Ethiopia average 5.5%, and for Thailand 9%. Combined with a 5% Trump tax, that's a loss of 10-15%. Inevitably, many will switch to informal channels like hawala, where, depending on the amount sent, fees can be as little as 0.1%. But as US knows too well, hawala funds terrorists and drugs, which are two sides of the same coin. Bin Laden and fentanyl. Plus, as World Bank has pointed out, the administrative costs of taxing remittances can be higher than the gains. Taxing remittances isn't a new idea. In 1937, Brazil imposed an 8% tax on remittances derived from interest payments. The state of Oklahoma already charges illegal immigrants – anyone without a valid ID – $7.5 on remittances up to $500, but earns just $13mn from it annually. Trump himself toyed with a remittance fee on Guatemalans in 2019. It wasn't a good idea then, and it isn't now. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Newsweek
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Green Cards Could Be Revoked At Any Time Under White House Proposal
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. The Justice Department told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to reconsider and potentially revoke green card holders' lawful permanent residency at any time. Newsweek has contacted the DOJ for comment via email. Why It Matters If the court sides with the Trump administration's position, the decision would effectively allow the government to revoke a green card years or even decades after it was issued. Critics warn this would erode due process. President Donald Trump pledged to deport millions of migrants without legal status. Trump has said that immigration enforcement would primarily focus on individuals with criminal records. However, recent reports have highlighted cases where people with valid documentation and no serious criminal history have been detained. File photo shows U.S. visa. File photo shows U.S. visa. AP What To Know During a Third Circuit hearing on Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that the attorney general holds broad authority to revisit and potentially revoke green card holders' residency status at any time—a stance that, if upheld by the court, could have sweeping implications for millions of permanent residents in the United States. This argument comes amid the ongoing case of Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam who has lived in New Jersey since 1996 and led one of the state's largest mosques. Qatanani has spent over two decades seeking permanent residency. His 1999 application was denied in 2006 after federal officials cited a 1993 Israeli detention and alleged ties to Hamas—allegations he denies, saying he was merely detained and mistreated. Though immigration judges twice ruled in his favor, most recently in 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals later intervened, revoking his green card. Qatanani appealed the decision. Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy argued that the immigration judge's ruling in favor of Mohammad Qatanani was never finalized, citing missing procedural steps like assigning a visa number and updating biometric data. She also claimed that, finalized or not, the Board of Immigration Appeals had the authority to reopen the case at any time. Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, questioned this interpretation of the board's power, expressing skepticism during the hearing. "Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?" Freeman questioned. "The regulation doesn't impose any time limit, so yes," Murphy added. "But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances." Green Cards Could Be Revoked At Any Time Under White House Proposal Green Cards Could Be Revoked At Any Time Under White House Proposal Photo Illustration"The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear. The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally "revoke" a permanent resident's status," Amelia Wilson, Assistant Professor of Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek. The agency is required to follow a formal process, which includes issuing a "Notice of Intent to Rescind" and giving the individual the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. "During these proceedings, it is the government that bears the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the permanent resident should have their status taken away. At that point, it is the immigration judge—and only the immigration judge—who can effectively strip an individual of their green card," Wilson said. "The Trump administration's proposal in front of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not a new legislative measure but a reinterpretation of existing green card law, one that has the potential to fundamentally alter the legal rights of lawful permanent residents," Bradford Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein, told Newsweek. What People Are Saying Wilson told Newsweek: "The Justice Department's position before the Third Circuit is yet another attempt to terrorize immigrant communities. The Trump Administration is telling noncitizens that they are never safe from sudden detention and deportation, even after they have followed the law, and even after they have been granted permanent residence by our own government." Bernstein told Newsweek: "In this case, the government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps required to finalize the grant of permanent residency. The immigrant involved was granted a green card by a judge, and the government failed to appeal within the standard 30-day window. Under well-established legal principles, that decision should be considered final. Yet the government now claims that because of a procedural oversight by the judge or the immigration service, it can still rescind the green card long after the fact. "Accepting this argument would severely undermine the due process rights of permanent residents. It would create a dangerous precedent in which green cards could be retroactively revoked not because of fraud or misconduct by the immigrant, but due to clerical or procedural errors by the government itself. This would destabilize the very concept of lawful permanent residency, which is supposed to provide long-term security and a path toward citizenship." What Happens Next If the Third Circuit sides with the government, the ruling would apply only within its jurisdiction—Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware—but it could trigger ripple effects. Immigrants in those states may face new legal risks or even consider moving to other jurisdictions. If the case reaches the Supreme Court and the ruling is upheld, it could set a nationwide precedent affecting how permanent residency decisions are reviewed.
