6 ms·

Poor countries selling citizenship? Come on. The US has a visa by investment program where you can invest either $500,000 (high risk) or $1,000,000 (low risk)

Poor countries selling citizenship? Come on. The US has a visa by investment program where you can invest either $500,000 (high risk) or $1,000,000 (low risk) and get a straight path to citizenship. The UK has a similar plan for $3,000,000. So do Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, and dozens of other very well developed nations. There have never been borders for the rich. No idea why this is being treated as news.

mlmonkey 12y ago
The difference is: the U.S. has a residency requirement. You have to live here for 5 years to get USC. These countries, on the other hand, have minimal or none.
- buro9 12y ago
  > the U.S. has a residency requirement This is fairly loose though. Just don't leave the country for more than 6 months, and spend at least 6 months and a day in the country in each year. The rich aren't constrained too much.
  - sp332 12y ago
    But you can't do that in 2 countries at once.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - buro9 12y ago
      I'm sure the rich have ways of being in two places at once (from a paper trail perspective). They do well with this when it comes to tax, I don't see why they wouldn't do well just because it's a question of citizenship.
      - DougWebb 12y ago
        I'm sure the rich have ways of being in two places at once (from a paper trail perspective). No, they don't, because it's based on border crossings recorded in your passport, not something trivial like rent payment records.
        phillc73 12y ago
        A couple of years ago I obtained British citizenship, after living in there for approximately 10 years. As part of the application process I needed to document every day spent out of the country, over the proceeding five years. This was not as simple as counting the stamps in my passport, and I didn't really know whether the Home Office had any other way of tracking me. It took several days for me to compile the complete list. As an example, fly London to Belfast, rent a car and drive to the Republic of Ireland. No stamp in the passport. A few times traveling to the European mainland, other than by air, resulted in a lack of either arrival or departure stamps. My passport was never stamped on departure from the UK. Now I have British citizenship, I regularly travel across multiple EU borders and no crossing is recorded in my passport. My British passport, although two years old, does not have a single stamp in it, and I've been resident in a different EU country for the past year.
    - malandrew 12y ago
      What counts as a day? I imagine that a half day in two countries would be counted as one day towards both since neither is probably splitting hairs over whether it was 12 hours and one minute. I would imagine that because of this it is possible to "double spend" a day for every time you fly between the same two counties. Obviously this assumes that given a range of dates, the number of days is calculated as inclusive of the date of ingress and egress.
      - refurb 12y ago
        At first I thought you were just being obtuse, but you are correct! USCIS will count the day that an applicant departs from the United States and the day he or she returns as days of physical presence within the United States for naturalization purposes.[1] As long as the other country counts it the same way, you could spend 6 months in two countries and end up fulfilling the physical presence requirements in both. [1]http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartD-Chapter4.html http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12...
      - tellarin 12y ago
        Well, at least China only counts it if it's a full 24 hours in the country.
    - bernardom 12y ago
      Why would you want to? There can't be that many countries in which one would want citizenship. Especially given that some of them (or is it just the US?) have horrible tax consequences even for expats.
      - sp332 12y ago
        Pretty much just the US does that.
        CalRobert 12y ago
        Eritrea is the one other one.
    - peteretep 12y ago
      Well, not more than 6 months, no, but I'm legally resident in two countries, one of which cares if I'm there more than 180 days, and the other cares if I'm there for more than 90 days; not everywhere is America.
  - pkaye 12y ago
    You also have to pay taxes on worldwide income and maintain a residence if you keep on doing the 6 months deal. I don't think anyone becomes an US resident to dodge taxes.
    - hkmurakami 12y ago
      For the super rich from countries with questionably run regimes, citizenship in the US (and partial transfer of assets) is a great hedge against a potential fall of the regime or seizure of assets. A 10-20% decline in net worth is totally worth it for that hedge.
      - grimlck 12y ago
        The US taxes citizens on world wide income, no matter where they are resident, so they are probably the worst choice among the first world nations for the super rich. There are people, like Eduardo Saverin, who give up their US citizenship to avoid US taxes. The UK is a haven for a lot of these people, as it has a very attractive non-domiciled rule (live in the UK, only get taxed on UK income or income which you bring into the UK - income which stays out of country is effectively untaxed). Or, perhaps a jurisdiction like Hong Kong with no capital gains tax might make sense.
        hkmurakami 12y ago
        I think there is a reason why Chinese money heads to West Coast USA / Canada and Russian money heads to UK. The large Asian population in the Coastal North American cities makes it a place that a rich Chinese person would actually want to live long term and send his family there. It is a place where they would have an easier time assimilating. I think that can't be discounted.
        walterbell 12y ago
        Why do Russians like the UK?
  - novaleaf 12y ago
    The US CIS is very explicit in stating there is no strict definition of minimum residency duration, and it is in fact up to the discretion of the visa/immigration officer upon your arrival. People who attempt to follow this "6 months + 1 day" idea are going to be sorry when they re-enter. citation: http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/maintaining-permanent-residence http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/mai...
  - ssalazar 12y ago
    For an ultra-rich jet-setter type I would hardly call that a loose requirement.
the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
> Come on. The US has a visa by investment program where you can invest either $500,000 (high risk) or $1,000,000 (low risk) and get a straight path to citizenship. The UK has a similar plan for $3,000,000. So do Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, and dozens of other very well developed nations. But you need to actually live there.
ohazi 12y ago
I think you may have missed the point. The U.S. would be last on your list if your interest was in not paying taxes rather than finding a place to live.
avn2109 12y ago
Agreed. A government is fundamentally just an organized gang that defends by force the right to tax some population, and I don't see anything wrong with such gangs formalizing the procedure by which one comes under their jurisdiction. It strikes me as analogous to the Mafia documenting a convenient, well-understood procedure by which to pay protection money/bribe them in exchange for some benefits associated with their possession of the means of physical violence.
- ssalazar 12y ago
  Can you name any gang or mafia group that uses racket money to build and maintain roads, telephone lines, and other public infrastructure?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - avn2109 12y ago
    Sure thing: Hezbollah in Lebanon [0], Hamas in Palestine [1], the Taliban in Afghanistan [2], the Islamic State and related factions in various fluid-bordered Middle Eastern regions [3], several Mexican drug cartels (with the notable exception of the Zetas), the list goes on and on. Basically any armed organization aiming for mainstream social control will have a schools-and-hospitals wing. Social services are propaganda expenses to these organizations, just as they are to e.g. the American government. This is because the DNA/business model of all such organizations is identical and as old as human civilization. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Social_welfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Social_welfare [2] http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1581119,00.html http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1581119,00... [3] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/islamic-state-bread-subsidies-syria-iraq-terrorism.html# http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/islamic-st... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Mexican_Drug_War#Propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Mexican_Drug_...
mhomde 12y ago
Haven't people actually been giving UP their US citizenship because they tax their citizens wherever they live?
nathannecro 12y ago
What you're referring to is classed as EB5 immigrants. It's been around since the 1990s and for fairly good reasons, up until recently, few people actually took advantage of it. What changed was the introduction of a group of people who would gladly pay a lot of money even after understanding the downsides. Typically, today what happens is that you sign up with a regional center -- an American development company, certified by both State and Federal agencies (in California at least) who promises to build things with your money. They take that money, spend it on development. It's crap shoot as to whether you'll get even a return on that investment because many developers/managers see that money as being "free". Their clients don't care if they get a return, they care about a US citizenship. What a lot of people don't realize is that the EB5 program doesn't give those foreign investors "real citizenship". EB1 through EB4 are different programs which allow immigration via "Extraordinary ability". Whether you're a famous professor coming from Germany, a highly valued programmer from Indonesia, or a well-known TV personality, those programs allow you to apply for immigration. EB5, similarly, allows investors who have already invested 0.5-1 mil USD to seek the right to immigrate into the United States. What that translates to is this: if you are successful in your bid (which, like most TV stars or famous professors, you will be) you will get a 2-year green card which gives you the right to hold residence in the United States. What that green card also gives you is the ability to sign all of your assets over to the US government. When you take that green card, the US states that they have the right to tax you and any of your assets...worldwide. Those taxes include income taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate taxes. For the average person who can afford to pay half a million dollars for this sort of thing, they likely fall into a very high tax bracket. On average, that's around 40-50% (federal+state) of their total income/gains/assets paid to the US government. On top of that, if the government decides to not renew your green card (due to the business failing or for other reasons), you will still be taxed for at least 10 more years. Of course, you could refuse to pay, but that just means you'll never be able to do business with an American-owned bank or set foot in American territory again. Like I mentioned at the beginning, the limitations are well known and that has deterred many people from seeking entry into the US via the EB5 program. The reason why it's becoming fairly popular now is twofold: 1. Regional centers are finally becoming more and more prevalent (they take 3-5 years to set up properly because of regulations and permits and reviews) 2. Many of the EB5 participants are immigrating from China where American education (in general) is perceived to be of high value. You are guaranteed entry into a very good public high school (Gunn, Paly, etc) as long as you live in that district. Not only that, but the UC system is far easier to get into as a "resident" of California. Anyways, I really wouldn't call it "selling citizenship". It's not a full citizenship. It comes with an asston of strings attached. Source: I helped set up a regional center in California.

mlmonkey 12y ago

The difference is: the U.S. has a residency requirement. You have to live here for 5 years to get USC. These countries, on the other hand, have minimal or none.

buro9 12y ago
> the U.S. has a residency requirement This is fairly loose though. Just don't leave the country for more than 6 months, and spend at least 6 months and a day in the country in each year. The rich aren't constrained too much.
- sp332 12y ago
  But you can't do that in 2 countries at once.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - buro9 12y ago
    I'm sure the rich have ways of being in two places at once (from a paper trail perspective). They do well with this when it comes to tax, I don't see why they wouldn't do well just because it's a question of citizenship.
    - DougWebb 12y ago
      I'm sure the rich have ways of being in two places at once (from a paper trail perspective). No, they don't, because it's based on border crossings recorded in your passport, not something trivial like rent payment records.
      - phillc73 12y ago
        A couple of years ago I obtained British citizenship, after living in there for approximately 10 years. As part of the application process I needed to document every day spent out of the country, over the proceeding five years. This was not as simple as counting the stamps in my passport, and I didn't really know whether the Home Office had any other way of tracking me. It took several days for me to compile the complete list. As an example, fly London to Belfast, rent a car and drive to the Republic of Ireland. No stamp in the passport. A few times traveling to the European mainland, other than by air, resulted in a lack of either arrival or departure stamps. My passport was never stamped on departure from the UK. Now I have British citizenship, I regularly travel across multiple EU borders and no crossing is recorded in my passport. My British passport, although two years old, does not have a single stamp in it, and I've been resident in a different EU country for the past year.
  - malandrew 12y ago
    What counts as a day? I imagine that a half day in two countries would be counted as one day towards both since neither is probably splitting hairs over whether it was 12 hours and one minute. I would imagine that because of this it is possible to "double spend" a day for every time you fly between the same two counties. Obviously this assumes that given a range of dates, the number of days is calculated as inclusive of the date of ingress and egress.
    - refurb 12y ago
      At first I thought you were just being obtuse, but you are correct! USCIS will count the day that an applicant departs from the United States and the day he or she returns as days of physical presence within the United States for naturalization purposes.[1] As long as the other country counts it the same way, you could spend 6 months in two countries and end up fulfilling the physical presence requirements in both. [1]http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartD-Chapter4.html http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12...
    - tellarin 12y ago
      Well, at least China only counts it if it's a full 24 hours in the country.
  - bernardom 12y ago
    Why would you want to? There can't be that many countries in which one would want citizenship. Especially given that some of them (or is it just the US?) have horrible tax consequences even for expats.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Pretty much just the US does that.
      - CalRobert 12y ago
        Eritrea is the one other one.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    Well, not more than 6 months, no, but I'm legally resident in two countries, one of which cares if I'm there more than 180 days, and the other cares if I'm there for more than 90 days; not everywhere is America.
- pkaye 12y ago
  You also have to pay taxes on worldwide income and maintain a residence if you keep on doing the 6 months deal. I don't think anyone becomes an US resident to dodge taxes.
  - hkmurakami 12y ago
    For the super rich from countries with questionably run regimes, citizenship in the US (and partial transfer of assets) is a great hedge against a potential fall of the regime or seizure of assets. A 10-20% decline in net worth is totally worth it for that hedge.
    - grimlck 12y ago
      The US taxes citizens on world wide income, no matter where they are resident, so they are probably the worst choice among the first world nations for the super rich. There are people, like Eduardo Saverin, who give up their US citizenship to avoid US taxes. The UK is a haven for a lot of these people, as it has a very attractive non-domiciled rule (live in the UK, only get taxed on UK income or income which you bring into the UK - income which stays out of country is effectively untaxed). Or, perhaps a jurisdiction like Hong Kong with no capital gains tax might make sense.
      - hkmurakami 12y ago
        I think there is a reason why Chinese money heads to West Coast USA / Canada and Russian money heads to UK. The large Asian population in the Coastal North American cities makes it a place that a rich Chinese person would actually want to live long term and send his family there. It is a place where they would have an easier time assimilating. I think that can't be discounted.
        walterbell 12y ago
        Why do Russians like the UK?
- novaleaf 12y ago
  The US CIS is very explicit in stating there is no strict definition of minimum residency duration, and it is in fact up to the discretion of the visa/immigration officer upon your arrival. People who attempt to follow this "6 months + 1 day" idea are going to be sorry when they re-enter. citation: http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/maintaining-permanent-residence http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/mai...
- ssalazar 12y ago
  For an ultra-rich jet-setter type I would hardly call that a loose requirement.

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago

> Come on. The US has a visa by investment program where you can invest either $500,000 (high risk) or $1,000,000 (low risk) and get a straight path to citizenship. The UK has a similar plan for $3,000,000. So do Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, and dozens of other very well developed nations. But you need to actually live there.

ohazi 12y ago

I think you may have missed the point. The U.S. would be last on your list if your interest was in not paying taxes rather than finding a place to live.

avn2109 12y ago

Agreed. A government is fundamentally just an organized gang that defends by force the right to tax some population, and I don't see anything wrong with such gangs formalizing the procedure by which one comes under their jurisdiction. It strikes me as analogous to the Mafia documenting a convenient, well-understood procedure by which to pay protection money/bribe them in exchange for some benefits associated with their possession of the means of physical violence.

ssalazar 12y ago
Can you name any gang or mafia group that uses racket money to build and maintain roads, telephone lines, and other public infrastructure?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- avn2109 12y ago
  Sure thing: Hezbollah in Lebanon [0], Hamas in Palestine [1], the Taliban in Afghanistan [2], the Islamic State and related factions in various fluid-bordered Middle Eastern regions [3], several Mexican drug cartels (with the notable exception of the Zetas), the list goes on and on. Basically any armed organization aiming for mainstream social control will have a schools-and-hospitals wing. Social services are propaganda expenses to these organizations, just as they are to e.g. the American government. This is because the DNA/business model of all such organizations is identical and as old as human civilization. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Social_welfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Social_welfare [2] http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1581119,00.html http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1581119,00... [3] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/islamic-state-bread-subsidies-syria-iraq-terrorism.html# http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/islamic-st... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Mexican_Drug_War#Propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Mexican_Drug_...

mhomde 12y ago

Haven't people actually been giving UP their US citizenship because they tax their citizens wherever they live?

nathannecro 12y ago

What you're referring to is classed as EB5 immigrants. It's been around since the 1990s and for fairly good reasons, up until recently, few people actually took advantage of it. What changed was the introduction of a group of people who would gladly pay a lot of money even after understanding the downsides. Typically, today what happens is that you sign up with a regional center -- an American development company, certified by both State and Federal agencies (in California at least) who promises to build things with your money. They take that money, spend it on development. It's crap shoot as to whether you'll get even a return on that investment because many developers/managers see that money as being "free". Their clients don't care if they get a return, they care about a US citizenship. What a lot of people don't realize is that the EB5 program doesn't give those foreign investors "real citizenship". EB1 through EB4 are different programs which allow immigration via "Extraordinary ability". Whether you're a famous professor coming from Germany, a highly valued programmer from Indonesia, or a well-known TV personality, those programs allow you to apply for immigration. EB5, similarly, allows investors who have already invested 0.5-1 mil USD to seek the right to immigrate into the United States. What that translates to is this: if you are successful in your bid (which, like most TV stars or famous professors, you will be) you will get a 2-year green card which gives you the right to hold residence in the United States. What that green card also gives you is the ability to sign all of your assets over to the US government. When you take that green card, the US states that they have the right to tax you and any of your assets...worldwide. Those taxes include income taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate taxes. For the average person who can afford to pay half a million dollars for this sort of thing, they likely fall into a very high tax bracket. On average, that's around 40-50% (federal+state) of their total income/gains/assets paid to the US government. On top of that, if the government decides to not renew your green card (due to the business failing or for other reasons), you will still be taxed for at least 10 more years. Of course, you could refuse to pay, but that just means you'll never be able to do business with an American-owned bank or set foot in American territory again. Like I mentioned at the beginning, the limitations are well known and that has deterred many people from seeking entry into the US via the EB5 program. The reason why it's becoming fairly popular now is twofold: 1. Regional centers are finally becoming more and more prevalent (they take 3-5 years to set up properly because of regulations and permits and reviews) 2. Many of the EB5 participants are immigrating from China where American education (in general) is perceived to be of high value. You are guaranteed entry into a very good public high school (Gunn, Paly, etc) as long as you live in that district. Not only that, but the UC system is far easier to get into as a "resident" of California. Anyways, I really wouldn't call it "selling citizenship". It's not a full citizenship. It comes with an asston of strings attached. Source: I helped set up a regional center in California.