The previous President, Donald Trump, once suggested that American corporations could make financial contributions towards individuals who are graduates of American universities, but who originally hail from countries such as India and others. This investment would allow these graduates access to the proposed ‘gold cards’ that are designed to prevent talent from leaving American shores. Within a twenty-four hour period, Trump expanded upon his initial suggestion, this time focusing on foreign students who graduated from American institutions of higher learning.
The idea Trump put forward was that inviting American companies to invest in talented students could potentially garner them a unique ‘gold card’, a concept that was fresh on the heels of his introduction of a Gold Card idea designed for foreign individuals who had made an investment in excess of $5 million within the United States. Trump’s repeated pitches of his ‘Gold Card’ concept suggests a desire for an evolved pathway to American citizenship tied closely to significant financial investment in the country.
Trump articulated that the current system had its downfalls, specifically that it created a situation where many talented individuals, after reaching the height of their education in the United States, were compelled to return back to their home countries, in many cases India, to find success and accumulate wealth. According to Trump, this brain drain was unfair and not to America’s advantage. His suggestion revolved around the notion that American companies could invest a sum of $1 million in graduate students from other countries.
Trump’s ‘Gold Card’ proposal, if put into action, could potentially introduce a new pool of funding for the country, although this whole idea seems fraught with the potential for misuse and exploitation. Howard Lutnick, Trump’s Commerce Secretary for a period of his presidency, provided a more measured view on the potential impact of the ‘Gold Card’ idea. Lutnick made a note to mention that at the time of his commenting, there was a line of over 250,000 eager investors waiting for the EB-5 visa, a program that requires an investment of roughly $1 million to gain access, a figure not far off from Trump’s proposed ‘gold card’ investment.
If one considers a scenario where about 200,000 of that quarter-million potential investor pool decided to opt for Trump’s ‘Gold Card’, the amount of money generated could indeed be a considerable sum. This significant amount could then be ideally used towards addressing the national debt, assuming a proper and unbiased allocation and distribution. However, for any of this to materialize, the existing EB-5 program would need considerable reform to accommodate the implementation of a ‘Gold Card’ program as per Lutnick.
From one side of the argument, the criticism may seem persuasive, that heavy financial investment should not be the determining factor in granting access to the coveted American citizenship. The whole idea of a ‘Gold Card’ seems to smack of elitism, potentially favoring those with substantial means over the thousands of others who might have valued skills but are economically disadvantaged. This program proposal could simply perpetuate a system where wealth is the prime ticket towards opportunities and privileges, leading to a further stratification between the rich and the poor, both domestically and internationally.
Another point to reckon with is whether the $5 million investment initially proposed by Trump is set at a reasonable level. Such a high figure could feasibly exclude many potential investors who might have less to offer financially but can contribute significantly to the American economy in other capacities. Just because someone has a large amount of money to invest, it doesn’t automatically mean they’re going to be a valuable asset to our society or that the investment will be worthwhile in the long term.
In the case where American companies were to invest in foreign students, wouldn’t there be certain safeguards needed to make sure that these companies don’t simply see this as a means of cheap labor? Such a proposal could conceivably turn into a mechanism where corporations buy the right to exploit these individuals as lower wage workers, rather than genuinely investing in their future and the betterment of the nation.
Then, there’s the question of whether these students from home countries like India would necessarily be better off staying in America. Trump’s proposal essentially begs the question of whether we are creating an unwarranted dependency for these students on American jobs and disregarding the benefits they could bring to their own countries, fueling the issues of brain drain globally.
Finally, it can’t be ignored how narrowly focused Trump’s suggestion is, as it only takes into consideration the financial aspect of the equation. Achieving American citizenship is a complex process that should evaluate different factors, ranging from individual skills, cultural adaptation, contribution to society, intent, and commitment to American values, among others. It’s a bit shortsighted and potentially dismissive to equate the richness of this immersive process to a simple capitalistic transaction of buying into American citizenship with money.
Conclusively, while there might be some economic sense in the grand idea of Trump’s ‘Gold Card’, it remains a simplistic and flagrantly elitist vision of how immigration should operate, affirming a system that prefers the wealthy and potentially creates a privileged class of immigrants that could afford to buy their way into the United States. It could be viewed as a transactional bargain of citizenship through economic means, a short-cut of sorts that disdainfully bypasses the more traditional and challenging route that many current American citizens have had to take.