There are plenty of reasons for officials to block proposed development of an all-Chinese city in New York's Catskills — the most compelling being its potential to expand the U.S. influence of a nation hostile to America.
Center for Immigration Studies ( cis.org) fellow David North details the China City of America (CCOA) project's doesn't-add-up budget and other problems in a new report. Among them is reliance on the economically ineffective, fraud- and failure-ridden U.S. EB-5 visa program that essentially sells “green cards” to foreign investors otherwise unable to enter America legally.
They must invest at least $500,000 and create at least 10 jobs. Claiming 255 investors, CCOA's first phase would have to create 2,550 full-time jobs; CIS says it's “difficult to see how this number can be reached.” Also, as CCOA targets regulated wetlands, it would need environmental permits that Mr. North suspects “are not issued easily in New York.”
But the most worrisome aspect is highlighted by North's sources within American branches of Falun Gong, the exercise/meditation/moral movement persecuted in China. He reports Falun Gong concerns about boosting China's U.S. influence and CCOA investment ultimately coming from the Communist regime in Beijing.
National security thus is foremost among the many reasons why U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must deny EB-5 approval for this project.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The Thursday wrap
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes