The EB-5 visa program: End it
Few takers and negligible economic benefits should lead Congress to end the EB-5 program, which essentially sells visas to foreign investors otherwise unable to legally enter the United States.
That's what David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies ( cis.org ), concludes in his study of the program.
Capped at 10,000 visas annually, the program issues far fewer, despite requiring investment of as little as $500,000 for as little as two years and creation of just 10 jobs -- too cheap a price for admission, Mr. North says.
At most, it accounts for only 6 cents of every $100 in additional foreign investment annually.
Despite EB-5 promotion, other nations' similar programs draw more takers. EB-5 also loses applicants to a State Department program that extends visas indefinitely for entrepreneurs from nations that have treaties with America.
China doesn't -- and more than half of fiscal year 2010's EB-5 visas went to mainland Chinese.
And with many EB-5 investments going bad, North says, "No one, citizens or aliens, middlemen or workers, or the economy generally, seems to be getting much out of the program."
Congress must recognize that the EB-5 program is simply not worth keeping -- and deny it the three-year renewal it needs to continue past Sept. 30.
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 â 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.