8 ms·
Buy a home, get a US visa, Senators propose
- lr 15y agoAgree with this or not, this is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking members of Congress need to be doing.
- onemoreact 15y agoThere are several programs that let you 'buy' a Visa and adding another one for the low low price of '$500,000 to buy a home in the U.S.' is not going to do much for immigration or home prices.
- sixtofour 15y agoThe $500,000 floor seems to be a benefit for people who have $500,000 houses to sell. Doesn't do much for Joe Sixpack while he's deciding whether to stick or walk away.
- lallysingh 15y ago"'Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out,' the paper added." $250k's not terrible.
- jhamburger 15y agoIn theory if high-end prices go up, it should have a cascading effect with lower-end prices going up to fill the vacuum.
- blinkingled 15y agoIt's a VISA - not Permanent Residence. When people invest in a residence for a VISA, they generally do so to settle down. So I am not sure how safe the potential home buyers are going to feel investing $500K in a house with the risk that their VISA renewal or entry to the US can be denied 3 years down the road. Current climate is just not very conducive to hope that something like this will fly.
- nobody314159 15y agoThey don't even have to change anything - a VISA isn't a guarranteed right of entry. You just need minimum wage guy at the airport desk to not like your face and you don't get in - no matter how many VISAs you have in your passport. You can of course try and correct the problem from the other country after you have been denied entry - if you can get an airline to carry you.
- hugh3 15y agoI've never heard of anyone being denied entry, in practice, because the minimum-wage guy (actually immigration officers earn a median salary of $46,0000) at the airport doesn't like their face. It's true that they legally can deny entry to someone with a valid visa, but in practice it has to escalate a few levels up the chain of command before they can do that. A low-level flunky trying to deny someone entry for specious reasons would get into trouble.
- dalke 15y agoNaah. Giving sweet-heart deals to people with a lot of money isn't out-of-the-box thinking - it's older than the hills. Out-of-box thinking would include enforcing consumer protection laws, strong oversight of large businesses, and progressive taxes. That sort of thinking hasn't been so common over the last few decades.
- CWuestefeld 15y agoI think you've been caught up by the current mass hysteria, and forgotten to look for the reality: enforcing consumer protection laws See FTC's web site for news [1] like yesterday's "FTC Stops Nationwide Federal Jobs Scam". strong oversight of large businesses How about the DOJ suing to stop AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile? How about the absurd suit against Boeing for wanting to build a factory in a state where they don't have to worry about unions? progressive taxes The tax rates vary from 10% up to 35%, as you go up the income scale [2]. So, there are your progressive taxes. [1] http://www.ftc.gov/opa/index.shtml http://www.ftc.gov/opa/index.shtml [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States...
- akg1 15y agoThe tax rates vary from 10% up to 35%, as you go up the income scale [2]. So, there are your progressive taxes. Income taxes vary from 10-35%. Payroll taxes vary from ~14% down to infinitesimal as you go up the income scale, they are not progressive, and for the people at the bottom end of that 'progressive' scale, they tend to cost more than income taxes. It's frustrating that I even have to make this point. Everybody knows about this, and yet when these discussions happen, it's like payroll taxes don't exist, or don't count, or somehow or another are not part of the debate. For that matter, neither are capital gains.
- dalke 15y agoOh, so some having _some_ consumer protection means there's strong consumer protection? Please explain why the financial industry is so strongly against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; given that it will enforce laws that already exist. Why do credit card companies operate from the states with the weakest usury laws? Yes, the Supreme Court says it's legal, but why is there no federal cap on usury? The only private recourse consumers have against bad business practices is a civil lawsuit, with the threat of high punitive damages. "Tort reform" wants to cap those damages, but promoters never suggest any alternative compensatory consumer protection. Why should I not interpret this as a reducing consumer protection? Speaking of unions: Unions are a way for employees to protect themselves against bad business practices in the work place. (Whistle-blowing protection laws are another.) Many politicians want to break the unions, but offer no alternatives for employees facing those bad practices. Why should I not see this as politicians being aligned with business against employees? How is it that the recent GAO Audit on "Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve" found so many apparent conflicts of interest, and why weren't there policies in place to prevent that from happening? Banking oversight over the last few decades (perhaps since the S&L crisis of the 1980s, but definitely in the last 10 years) has clearly not been enough to catch the numerous incidents of wide-scale fraud. These were already illegal, but where was the oversight, where are the investigations, and who is going to jail because of it?
- njharman 15y agoBuying citizenship / visa is long standing practice. Government subsidising, bailing out industries is long standing practice. This routine, far from out of the box.
- peacemaker 15y ago$500,000 to get a visa? Seems to me like Congress is still catering to the rich.
- adestefan 15y agoThey already do that with the EB-5 visa. Invest at least $1,000,000 (or $500,000) and keep 10 jobs in the US and you can live here.
- AlexC04 15y agoThe E-2 can be had for as little as $100,000 http://www.h1base.com/visa/work/Compare%20work%20Visas/ref/1133 http://www.h1base.com/visa/work/Compare%20work%20Visas/ref/1...
- fourmii 15y agoThey're just trying to increase the 1%...
- keeptrying 15y agoWhich other country does this? I think just lessens the appeal of an usa visa and the USA in general.
- ComputerGuru 15y agoPretty much all of them. Most countries in the world have "investor visas" which let you buy your way into the country.
- yummyfajitas 15y agoI don't understand - what problem is this supposed to solve?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- adestefan 15y agoPeople that have $500,000+ houses that they need to sell.
- hugh3 15y agoAmerica has too many poor people, and not enough rich people. And it's easier (and more legal) to import rich people than to kick the poor people out. It makes sense that the countries of the world should be competing for the most talented people. And being rich is the best proxy for being talented that we have.
- pitdesi 15y agoIn case you're looking at this and somehow don't know about http://startupvisa.com/ http://startupvisa.com/ , take a look and offer your support if so inclined. It would allow non-US entrepreneurs with funding from a US investor to get a visa to start a company. StartupVisa would be wayyy more beneficial than the housing thing... get folks to contribute to society, hire local workers, etc. Those local workers then can in turn buy homes, etc.
- nobody314159 15y agoTrouble is that it must be from a US investor. So it's the same slave labor problem as H1B. If you don't like anything the investor suggests after you have moved then he withdraws the funding and you get deported. Can we think of how a good capitalist VC might use that to their advantage?
- untog 15y agoI think you're overstating the issue. I am in the US in an H1B visa and am in no way 'slave labor'. But I can't start my own company- the Startup Visa would finally solve that issue.
- nobody314159 15y agoThere aren't many places where it's considered reasonable that your employer can fire you for no reason and have you and your family thrown out of the country aswell.
- h1babuse 15y agoReasonable? No. Does it happen? Yes... Are there business models based upon this feature? Yes... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3je9EqJurWo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3je9EqJurWo http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17855015/Videos/trt-domenic-romanelli-boss-from-hell.m4v http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17855015/Videos/trt-domenic-romanell...
- geori 15y agoIncentives that rewarded home ownership got us in this quagmire. I hate lobbyists.
- jellicle 15y agoThe only beneficiaries I can think of for this program would be rich capitalists from China and the Middle East who are exporting their gains and sinking them into foreign property already, and who would now get a fast-track for immigration as well. I guess Congress would like to get campaign contributions from these people (once you have a green card, you can legally make political contributions to U.S. politicians). Still waiting for Congress to do something - anything - for people who aren't millionaires (or indeed, are U.S. citizens).
- andreshb 15y agoI don't see a problem in these being the only beneficiaries, right now, they are already getting EB5 visas if they invest in a business. This approach would be similar, except with the added benefit of solving the issue (or at least help) of the housing market. I think this is a really creative approach.
- mixmastamyk 15y agoThe problem with housing is that it is too expensive for the common man. Propping up prices artificially is not a solution.
- flourpower 15y agoThe prices now will be less artificial, since more people will be involved in setting them.
- justincormack 15y agoMore artificial, since they are buying a visa with a free house attached.
- r00fus 15y agoIt is for the financial elite. They want to OWN and let the "common man" RENT.
- deleted 15y ago
- shareme 15y agookay Senate for sale business as usual..nothing to see here
- sgt 15y agoToo bad it must be at least $500,000. The first that came to mind was to buy a derelict house in Detroit somewhere, and then automatically getting a US visa!
- 9999 15y agoGive me your energetic, your rich, Your striding elite yearning to oppress, The vaunted gild of your desolate shore. Send these, the landowners, first-class-turbulence-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the door for those with gold!
- pjscott 15y agoWhat would you prefer?
- nobody314159 15y agoNew science, engineering, medical graduates who have just finished a US degree/masters/PhD?
- mbreese 15y agoI'm pretty sure that they can (or will) buy a house... Maybe not on the coasts, but as a grad student, I could buy a house in Indiana.
- pjscott 15y agoThe proposed law specifies that the house must cost at least $500,000. This is way outside the price range of most grad students, unfortunately.
- sliverstorm 15y agoWell, not the ones planning to go home. But perhaps a more welcoming route to becoming a citizen would help keep some of the ones leaving upon completing their degree.
- hugh3 15y agoThe only thing that bothers me about this proposal is that it might attract too many people doing PhDs for the wrong reason. And people doing PhDs for the wrong reason usually wind up doing bad research.
- cbs 15y ago$500,000? The number of people for whom visas are the only barrier to buying a home in the USA and would spend over 500k on one is probably way too small to have any real impact on the housing market. Why not $5k? There are plenty of houses going for dirt cheap in the parts of the country hit the worst by the recession. It would mean more people taking advantage of the program and selling that cheap housing would have more of an impact on the housing market and overall economy.
- ComputerGuru 15y agoBecause they clearly don't want immigrants from the bottom of the socioeconomic status of other countries.
- wisty 15y agoAnd they don't want immigrants buying a $5,000 house, then abandoning it to rent a closet in California.
- IgorPartola 15y agoInstead, they should automatically offer work visas to college graduates. It is such a pain to have to get a work visa after you graduate if you were on an F1 before then. And most people that come all the way to the US to go to college are top notch professionals by the time they graduate.
- nobody314159 15y agoBut many of those graduates will be in law or medicine so having more of them in the country will lower the wages in those professions And many of the others are scientists and engineers - people who often believe in evolution.
- nobody314159 15y agoTell me - does Irony just mean "made of Iron" here?
- IgorPartola 15y agoFor what it's worth, I did upvote you, but I think you are trivializing it a bit. My point is that there are alternatives, and I happen to think that my idea is pretty good; or at least good enough to share. At first your response did look like an attempt to shoot it down, but upon closer inspection I think you are just expressing frustration with the current system, if I am reading your comment correctly.
- amritsharma 15y agoI was on F1. I think offering work visa to all graduates could not be justified for the US economy. This would just increase the number of applicants for all the jobs. Even as of now, there's more supply than demand for jobs. Although, you're right it would make life so much easier for the international students. They could offer fast green card processing to those already working (H1B) in this country who buy a house worth $150k+. Good luck.
- 15y ago
- tps 15y agoDo they realize that there is a sizable number of US citizens living in the country that would like to buy a home and can afford one but due to the still artificially inflated prices in some areas of the country that can be attributed to low rates and the backlog of REO homes are choosing not to buy yet?
- coreyo 15y agoDo you see VCs loaning $$ to entreprenuers to buy a home in the US for a visa?
- ck2 15y agoHow about hire 100 US workers for a year, get a free home.
- FilterJoe 15y agoI'll go out on a limb here and say I like the basic idea. One major detail I would change is to make it a $100,000 or $50,000 minimum instead of $500,000. There are many parts of the country where it's hard to even find a house that's as expensive as $250,000. I'd like something like this to be open to all parts of the country and I'd like it to be open to middle class as well, not just wealthy people. Why do I like it? * Fill vacant homes (as opposed to urban blight) * There are many indirect economic benefits like money spent fixing homes, all the day to day purchasing that will be done by the new residents, etc. * In some cases, individuals will be able to rejoin relatives more easily. The urban blight thing is the one I care about most. I live in the East Bay of California and have seen certain neighborhoods totally fall apart as dozens of vacant homes attracted vandalism, drugs, and other forms of crime and caused remaining residents hardship. EDIT: formatting
- juiceandjuice 15y agoWell, the places where it's super hard to find a house at 500k, and somewhat easy at 100k, are the border states... New Mexico, Arizona, Texas (and Nevada). In these places, the 500k house is going to be the cream of the crop... the top 1%. Southern California is a different issue, but this isn't going to help the places where the housing market really took a shit, like Nevada and Arizona, because the market there is saturated with foreclosures of homes that might have originally sold for 500k but are probably worth half that much in the current market. The poisonous idea is that these homes were actually worth that much money, but they never were. The artificial demand of the sub-prime mortgage crisis pushed prices up where they should never had been. The 500k limit would try to, again, artificially inflate the worth of the house by stimulated demand in the highest priced homes, homes which should probably sell closer to 350, because the 150k premium might be worth it for some families to get a visa. The second problem with this thinking is that anyone who qualifies for a 500k house would likely be rich enough to get a visa in the US anyways as an investor. A lower limit of 150k would be reasonable for boosting the middle class, and actually helping the housing market, but that's obviously not the goal.
- mbreese 15y agoI agree, it would be difficult to find a house in Indiana for 500K... Perhaps the metric should be based on median home prices..
- gopi 15y agoI am not sure why many people are upset that this will attract the rich foreigners. Whats wrong with rich people moving in?. Think how much new tax revenue the country will gain if 10000 millionaires move every year
- nobody314159 15y agoVery little - millionaires tend not to pay much tax. Especially foreign ones whose income is difficult to trace. What happened in Vancouver when Canada did the same thing is that people bought the houses as an insurance so they had an escape route if Honk Kong went bad. Most of the houses either sat empty, were rented out, or the kid was dumped there to go to college. It did a lot for the local housing market - not clear it did quite so much for local entrepreneurial growth.
- erikj54 15y agoThat's true in partial. Vancouver has some interesting experiences with foreign capital investing in the housing market. It makes for a very expensive city. If the aim of this is to boost the price of the housing market, then I think this measure will do that. Whether or not that is a good thing is an entirely different issue.
- nobody314159 15y agoDepends if you are a bank sitting on a lot of unsellable fancy property!
- harichinnan 15y agoThis is the best solution I've heard so far that kills two birds with one stone. You could create a mini housing bubble thereby solving the unemployment and also offer a legal route for immigration for hard working folks. This should also offer a chance of amnesty for all illegal aliens when they buy a house worth 500,000$. Buy a house and get legal status/amnesty for trespassing into the country.
- smattiso 15y agoWe have to stop spending so much time/energy/money on trying to prop up housing prices. The valuations were clearly in a bubble. Now that the prices are more grounded in reality how about letting supply and demand dictate the prices?
- 0x12 15y ago$500K minimum? Anything to breathe life into the higher segment of the US real estate market ;) Kidding aside, are they also going to retro-actively award visas to all those that already own their own homes and do not currently have their paperwork in order? That would be a very quick way to solve another issue that was on the front page earlier today. $500K is a bit stiff as a lower limit.
- alex_c 15y ago“Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out,” the paper added.
- alex_c 15y agoI'm not convinced how effective this will be. The parts in the US where housing prices took the largest hit are also the parts where a foreigner with access to USD$500,000 is least likely to want to go in the first place.
- kreek 15y agoThis is a horrible idea, the problem is not that houses are too cheap it's that they're too expensive. A better idea would be to relax visa standards for starting a business that hires x number of americans. Those employees would have a far bigger impact on the economy as a whole as the majority of their income would be pumped right back in for basic necessities. Once they start a business here, guess what? They'll need somewhere to live and since they're rich they can still buy that $500k+ house.
- OstiaAntica 15y agoThis is the type of unserious, policy-by-press release we've come to expect from the micromanagers in the U.S. Congress. First of all, housing is still overpriced, in terms of historic trends, in many markets. Second, this is yet another program for ICE, which cannot manage its current immigration visa portfolio. This idea seems particularly open to abuse, since the home could be bought with borrowed money. (Sure it has to be "cash" investment but there's an asset here, you could easily cash out or have straw buyers.) I wish these guys would come up with better solutions to the banking crisis (yes, it isn't over) than selling U.S. visas.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- daniel-cussen 15y agoWe already sell/monetize US visas. You have to invest a few hundred thousand in a US-based business and you get a Visa. I believe the amount is 500,000.
- desigooner 15y agoDoesn't this Visa mandate that the person cannot work on this visa and it's just for stay?!
- Alex3917 15y agoIt's amazing these people can get away with claiming they don't get what OWS is about with a straight face.
- amritsharma 15y agoI'm not sure who will take "advantage" of this program - - $500,000 CASH investment - You get a 'resident visa', so you can not work here Source: WSJ. How about we give incentives to people already in this country? I propose: You get priority processing on your green card application if you buy a house worth more than $150k, and you can't sell for at least 3-5 years. Disclosure: I'm on the H1B visa. I bought a house last year while the 'first-time home buyer' $8k credit was available.
- geebee 15y agoAnother terrible idea, in my opinion. When an employee interviews with a company, the company should decide if the employee gets a job, not a visa. When a PhD candidate defends a dissertation, the university should decide if the student gets a degree, not a visa. When an entrepreneur applies for venture capital, the investor should decide if the entrepreneur gets money, not a visa. And yes, when a buyer makes an offer on a house, the seller should decide whether the buyer will get the house, not a visa None of these people should control whether a person gets to reside in the united states, and giving them this power is an invitation to government sponsored abuse.
- teyc 15y agoThis is suited not for entrepreneurs, but wealthy retirees from overseas and also parents of rich overseas students who want to be with their children. This is especially if they can show proof of pension income and will not take up work in the U.S.. However, the US tax laws aren't particularly friendly to the super rich and wealthy. Once you are deemed resident (I read this from phodgen's blog) then you have to pay tax on all your income.
- recursive 15y agoIt's not buy a home, it's spend half a mill. That gets about 4 homes 'round these parts.
- DeanCollinsLCC 15y agobuy a home....get stuck with "The Heart Taxation Act" if you haven't heard of it google it....this is whats going to drive a lot of expats away from the USA in 2014.