How does this compare to similar schemes in other countries? I believe Portugal is a popular destination for acquiring EU Passport. The UAE also has a golden visa, but it is not a path to citizenship or a passport.
In the EU 'golden visa' schemes are typically about investing a particular amount in the economy of the country. Exact amounts vary, but it's usually along the lines of x00,000 euro in property in the country (mortgage free value) or x00,000 euro in government bonds or x00,000 euro in a business within the country
Usually this gets you residency for some years conditional on the investment staying within the country, and potentially a path to citizenship after some years of living in the country.
The 15K application fee for background checks seems like a good idea. The Turkish program for citizenship by investment attracted many global crime syndicate members because apparently there were no proper background checks and you are allowed to pick a new name when you acquire the Turkish citizenship. Suddenly world class drug or illegal gambling kingpins turned into a businessmen from Turkey, over the years there were many many high profile scandals, murders etc and apparently they integrated their business into their new country too. Some speculate that has happened knowingly because at the same time the Turkish government reduced the money flow check and even started a program where you can just launder your money by paying some small tax. They din’t ask you questions where that money came from if you pay the tax. So you can get your drug cartel money into the bank banking system.
These days they are trying to clean up the mess they created a few years but it did help to keep the economy afloat when they were doing economically ridiculous but ideologically and politically motivated things.
Malta is especially famous for that in the EU by essentially selling EU citizenship. But the EU has recently pushed back through the ECJ, which ruled the scheme illegal.
I went to the USA a few months ago and was pulled aside and questioned (I have no idea why)
and when I told them I didn't have facebook they looked at me like I was mad. They asked "why not" and I told them I was ideologically opposed to it, because I believe it encourages narcissism. They acted like I was a criminal.
I found this enourmously funny and kept laughing at them insisting there was something suspicious about me not having a facebook account, which of course made me look even more guilty in their eyes.
In the end they got frustrated and just let me through, but there was an underlying and quite theatening tone which I felt was like a presumption of guilt, I laughed at the time at the absurdity of the situation, just because I wasnt expecting it, but on deeper reflection its pretty disturbing.
But that is a bit of the issue: I see people use 'young' and 'old' platforms and it's all the same: stuck to the phone scrolling through exactly the same slob, ai or human, hours on end. Can't say I even find LinkedIn any different (which I also do not use, but colleagues send me stuff sometimes). So I want no part of any of them. What do I say then? Because I feel they will think I am some sort of unabomber haxor dude coming to overthrow the gov because I am not a happy insta scroller. Which is absolutely insane. Maybe I will hang a big cross around my neck and carry a bible at all times and no phone. Same purpose, so probably works.
You demur Facebook, they ask “what do you use then?” which is a more open-ended question with more flexible rooms to spin an answer. Making a stand by saying “I don’t use Facebook because I’m a techno-woke e-Luddite” closes all that.
The US taxes worldwide income therefore anybody with significant worldwide income would not want to become a US citizen (unless they also have other motivations apart from money).
A country offering a passport is hoping the applicant will spend their money in the country: however most wealthy applicants are capitalists that want to grow their wealth not shrink it. Therefore applicants would choose qualifying investments that don't cost them money (and thus don't increase income for the country). In theory angel/VC investors could grow the pie, but I'm skeptical.
From what I have seen the investment schemes have significant loopholes - almost as if the schemes are just shams with lies that appease voters.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of whether the schemes are net positive for countries.
How does this compare to similar schemes in other countries? I believe Portugal is a popular destination for acquiring EU Passport. The UAE also has a golden visa, but it is not a path to citizenship or a passport.
In the EU 'golden visa' schemes are typically about investing a particular amount in the economy of the country. Exact amounts vary, but it's usually along the lines of x00,000 euro in property in the country (mortgage free value) or x00,000 euro in government bonds or x00,000 euro in a business within the country
Usually this gets you residency for some years conditional on the investment staying within the country, and potentially a path to citizenship after some years of living in the country.
Sounds similar to USA's existing immigrant investor visas (eg: EB 5):
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...
The 15K application fee for background checks seems like a good idea. The Turkish program for citizenship by investment attracted many global crime syndicate members because apparently there were no proper background checks and you are allowed to pick a new name when you acquire the Turkish citizenship. Suddenly world class drug or illegal gambling kingpins turned into a businessmen from Turkey, over the years there were many many high profile scandals, murders etc and apparently they integrated their business into their new country too. Some speculate that has happened knowingly because at the same time the Turkish government reduced the money flow check and even started a program where you can just launder your money by paying some small tax. They din’t ask you questions where that money came from if you pay the tax. So you can get your drug cartel money into the bank banking system.
These days they are trying to clean up the mess they created a few years but it did help to keep the economy afloat when they were doing economically ridiculous but ideologically and politically motivated things.
Malta is especially famous for that in the EU by essentially selling EU citizenship. But the EU has recently pushed back through the ECJ, which ruled the scheme illegal.
So if you get one of those you are exempt from providing 5 years of your social media data? Convenient.
How does it currently (not) work if you don't have/use socials? They don't believe you to begin with?
I went to the USA a few months ago and was pulled aside and questioned (I have no idea why)
and when I told them I didn't have facebook they looked at me like I was mad. They asked "why not" and I told them I was ideologically opposed to it, because I believe it encourages narcissism. They acted like I was a criminal.
I found this enourmously funny and kept laughing at them insisting there was something suspicious about me not having a facebook account, which of course made me look even more guilty in their eyes.
In the end they got frustrated and just let me through, but there was an underlying and quite theatening tone which I felt was like a presumption of guilt, I laughed at the time at the absurdity of the situation, just because I wasnt expecting it, but on deeper reflection its pretty disturbing.
Should’ve just said “Facebook? Isn’t that just for old people? Why would I use that?” instead of what they would perceive as a nerdy smart-ass answer.
But that is a bit of the issue: I see people use 'young' and 'old' platforms and it's all the same: stuck to the phone scrolling through exactly the same slob, ai or human, hours on end. Can't say I even find LinkedIn any different (which I also do not use, but colleagues send me stuff sometimes). So I want no part of any of them. What do I say then? Because I feel they will think I am some sort of unabomber haxor dude coming to overthrow the gov because I am not a happy insta scroller. Which is absolutely insane. Maybe I will hang a big cross around my neck and carry a bible at all times and no phone. Same purpose, so probably works.
You demur Facebook, they ask “what do you use then?” which is a more open-ended question with more flexible rooms to spin an answer. Making a stand by saying “I don’t use Facebook because I’m a techno-woke e-Luddite” closes all that.
“Ready, Kafka?”
— Dark Helmet in Spaceballs
You have to create/buy sleeper accounts.
The US taxes worldwide income therefore anybody with significant worldwide income would not want to become a US citizen (unless they also have other motivations apart from money).
A country offering a passport is hoping the applicant will spend their money in the country: however most wealthy applicants are capitalists that want to grow their wealth not shrink it. Therefore applicants would choose qualifying investments that don't cost them money (and thus don't increase income for the country). In theory angel/VC investors could grow the pie, but I'm skeptical.
From what I have seen the investment schemes have significant loopholes - almost as if the schemes are just shams with lies that appease voters.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of whether the schemes are net positive for countries.
Is this satire?