4 ms·

Better option would simply be the "write us a big fat check" visa. Presumably, the only people who would be willing to pay, say, $50,000 over the course of five

Better option would simply be the "write us a big fat check" visa. Presumably, the only people who would be willing to pay, say, $50,000 over the course of five years would be those who can make enough to make it worthwhile. It would also get rid of the perverse incentives related to having to stay with the employer you got the H1-B from.

pavlov 17y ago
Don't underestimate the willingness of third world families to send their children to the US under this "fat check visa" scheme, regardless of whether they would have any source of guaranteed income. Currently Africans are commonly paying over 10,000 euros for an illegal trip to an undetermined European country. The families raise the money for young men even though there's no guarantee whether the kid will end up in Norway or Italy (and often no further than Morocco). Compared to this, a five-year US visa for $50k would be an extremely attractive option. I doubt that desperate young men whose families are hopelessly in debt are the kind of immigrants that the US would want to specifically attract.
- ajju 17y ago
  Agreed. Which is why skill based immigration has to be a huge component. Canada does this exceptionally well.
KirkWylie 17y ago
They have one. It involves a $1MM investment and no employment options (you have to "invest" it and can't work for the firm(s) in which you "invest").
potatolicious 17y ago
This is a terrible idea. We already have people borrowing money in huge sums to get themselves smuggled into first-world countries, then becoming indentured slaves in perpetuity to pay it off. No one should ever be able to buy their way into a country with raw cash. Skilled immigration policies that aren't stupid (i.e. H-1B is the dumbest "immigration" policy I've ever seen) are a much better idea.
- seldo 17y ago
  > No one should ever be able to buy their way into a country with raw cash. Then you, too, support reform of the existing US immigration laws (see Kirk's comment above -- investing $1m will get you in).
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    I do support reform - but I may be convinced that $1M can buy immigration. The main thing I objected to in OP's idea was the extreme possibility (nay, certainty) that a low-amount ($200K and less I say) would result in legitimized human trafficking - people who "immigrate" and then are practically owned by those who paid for their way in. You raise this bar high enough and the possibility disappears. That being said, the whole idea still sounds sort of sketchy to me. The US (like all industrialized nations) doesn't really need capital - not $1M at a time anyways. What it needs is skilled labour - things that will help the country compete internationally. IMHO skilled labour really ought to be the only form of immigration.
    - kevinpet 17y ago
      The modern form of indentured servitude seems to be mostly involving illegal immigrants or guest worker type programs that tie a worker to a specific employer. I could be wrong, I'd appreciate any references for a legal immigration system along the lines I suggested that has caused problems (I may be asking in vain -- it may never have been tried). The tax structure in the US is progressive. If we accepted unlimited immigrants we would end up with many low skilled workers coming here. Regardless of whether this is desirable (I think there's moral arguments to be made in its favor), it's politically impossible. Placing a bar that involves a fix fee per year, if the issues related to being enslaved could be avoid, would attract exactly who we want -- those who would do so much better in a developed country that it's worth while. I see it as if you were born in the US, you were freely given this thing, the right to live in the US, that is very valuable on a world market. Why not allow others to buy that same thing?
elai 17y ago
Canada has an entrepreneur and investor visa classes, where you basically start/buy a business for $x for y amount of time, or invest x amount of dollars (a house purchase, whatever) and get a permanent residency after a few years, which then leads to a citizenship. You don't really see problems from that.

pavlov 17y ago

Don't underestimate the willingness of third world families to send their children to the US under this "fat check visa" scheme, regardless of whether they would have any source of guaranteed income. Currently Africans are commonly paying over 10,000 euros for an illegal trip to an undetermined European country. The families raise the money for young men even though there's no guarantee whether the kid will end up in Norway or Italy (and often no further than Morocco). Compared to this, a five-year US visa for $50k would be an extremely attractive option. I doubt that desperate young men whose families are hopelessly in debt are the kind of immigrants that the US would want to specifically attract.

ajju 17y ago
Agreed. Which is why skill based immigration has to be a huge component. Canada does this exceptionally well.

KirkWylie 17y ago

They have one. It involves a $1MM investment and no employment options (you have to "invest" it and can't work for the firm(s) in which you "invest").

potatolicious 17y ago

This is a terrible idea. We already have people borrowing money in huge sums to get themselves smuggled into first-world countries, then becoming indentured slaves in perpetuity to pay it off. No one should ever be able to buy their way into a country with raw cash. Skilled immigration policies that aren't stupid (i.e. H-1B is the dumbest "immigration" policy I've ever seen) are a much better idea.

seldo 17y ago
> No one should ever be able to buy their way into a country with raw cash. Then you, too, support reform of the existing US immigration laws (see Kirk's comment above -- investing $1m will get you in).
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I do support reform - but I may be convinced that $1M can buy immigration. The main thing I objected to in OP's idea was the extreme possibility (nay, certainty) that a low-amount ($200K and less I say) would result in legitimized human trafficking - people who "immigrate" and then are practically owned by those who paid for their way in. You raise this bar high enough and the possibility disappears. That being said, the whole idea still sounds sort of sketchy to me. The US (like all industrialized nations) doesn't really need capital - not $1M at a time anyways. What it needs is skilled labour - things that will help the country compete internationally. IMHO skilled labour really ought to be the only form of immigration.
  - kevinpet 17y ago
    The modern form of indentured servitude seems to be mostly involving illegal immigrants or guest worker type programs that tie a worker to a specific employer. I could be wrong, I'd appreciate any references for a legal immigration system along the lines I suggested that has caused problems (I may be asking in vain -- it may never have been tried). The tax structure in the US is progressive. If we accepted unlimited immigrants we would end up with many low skilled workers coming here. Regardless of whether this is desirable (I think there's moral arguments to be made in its favor), it's politically impossible. Placing a bar that involves a fix fee per year, if the issues related to being enslaved could be avoid, would attract exactly who we want -- those who would do so much better in a developed country that it's worth while. I see it as if you were born in the US, you were freely given this thing, the right to live in the US, that is very valuable on a world market. Why not allow others to buy that same thing?

elai 17y ago

Canada has an entrepreneur and investor visa classes, where you basically start/buy a business for $x for y amount of time, or invest x amount of dollars (a house purchase, whatever) and get a permanent residency after a few years, which then leads to a citizenship. You don't really see problems from that.