The Immigrant Investor (EB-5) Visa
A Program that Is, and Deserves to Be, Failing
The EB-5 investor visa, which allows a foreigner to invest in the United States in exchange for Legal Permanent Residence, has seen its requirements watered down by the Department of Homeland Security and Congress in an attempt to increase use of the program. The standards have been so debased that a Wall Street real-estate project in lower Manhattan is successfully claiming to be in a 'depressed area' in order to garner investments through the program, as reported recently by the New York Times.
A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds the program inherently flawed, and calls for its elimination or, failing that, for significant reforms. The report, 'The Immigrant Investor (EB-5) Visa: A Program that Is, and Deserves to Be, Failing', discusses the program's design, operation, and results. Author David North is a CIS fellow who has studied the interaction of immigration and the U.S. economy for more than 30 years.
This examination of the EB-5 program shows that, despite massive promotional efforts:
There are comparatively few takers, and only a fraction of them complete the process and get green cards;
No one, citizens or aliens, middlemen or workers, or the economy generally, seems to be getting much out of the program;
Many of the investments turn out to be bad ones, some scandalous; and
Other immigrant-receiving nations run much more rational programs than we do, while securing more significant investments, proportionately, from aliens.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Bryan Griffith, 202-466-8185, press@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Canadians Are Divided on the Actual Effect of Immigration
Younger respondents endorse the concept of the “mosaic” while middle-aged and older Canadians prefer the “melting pot”
People in Canada are split when assessing immigration, and only three-in-ten believe the country should continue to be a mosaic, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,005 Canadian adults, 39 per cent of respondents believe that immigration is having a positive effect in Canada, while 39 per cent think it is having a negative effect.
Views on Legal and Illegal Immigration
Since September 2010, the proportion of Canadians who think immigration is having a positive effect in the country has increased by five points. Respondents aged 18-to-34 are more likely to regard immigration in a positive light (48%) than middle-aged Canadians (33%) and those over the age of 55 (39%).
Two-in-five Canadians (41%) think the number of legal immigrants who are allowed to relocate in Canada should decrease, including almost half of respondents aged 35-to-54 (46%).
The views of Canadians on illegal immigration have hardened over the past 14 months. Half of respondents (50%, +6 since September 2010) believe illegal immigrants in Canada take jobs away from Canadian workers. In addition, only 23 per cent of respondents would allow illegal immigrants to stay in Canada and eventually apply for citizenship, while 50 per cent think illegal immigrants should be required to leave their jobs and be deported.
Multiculturalism
Three-in-five Canadians (62%) think multiculturalism has been good for the country, including 72 per cent of respondents aged 18-to-34. However, more Canadians (58%) are likely to endorse the concept of the melting pot—immigrants assimilating and blending into Canadian society—than the mosaic (30%), where cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved.
At least one-in-four respondents believe Canada is an intolerant society towards Muslims (33%), Aboriginal Canadians (28%) and immigrants from South Asia, such as India and Pakistan (25%). A third of Canadians (32%) believe that racism is a significant problem in Canada, while 55 per cent disagree with this view.
Analysis
The proportion of Canadians who believe immigration is having a negative effect in the country is the lowest in the past four years. The main source of hostility appears to be illegal immigration, with half of Canadians calling for unlawful workers to return to their country of origin. This level of support for the deportation of illegal immigrants is 11 points lower than what was observed in Britain in December 2011, but seven points higher than in the United States in December 2010.
Younger Canadians are more likely to back the idea of a “path to citizenship” for illegal workers, but sizeable majorities of middle-aged and older respondents reject this idea.
The positive views on multiculturalism drop markedly with age, from 72 per cent for those aged 18-to-34, to 63 per cent among those aged 35-to-54, and to 50 per cent for those over the age of 55. Middle-aged and older Canadians are also more likely to support the concept of the melting pot than the mosaic.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment