A golden ticketThe Kushners put controversial investor visas in the spotlight

NICOLE KUSHNER MEYER, sister of Jared Kushner, a senior adviser of Donald Trump, promoted investment in a New Jersey apartment complex owned by Kushner Companies at a presentation in Beijing last week, promising: “invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.” During the presentation, Ms Kushner (pictured) referred to her brother’s service to the company, which he left in January. The event, and her words, raised conflict of interest concerns given Mr Kushner’s position; the organisation later apologised, “if that mention of her brother was in any way interpreted as an attempt to lure investors. That was not Ms Meyer’s intention”. But the saga has also highlighted the controversy that surrounds the EB-5 immigrant investor programme, which gives wealthy foreigners residency in return for job-creating investments. The programme does need reform to make it less susceptible to abuse. But, if anything, it should be expanded.

There are good reasons to dislike the EB-5 programme in its current form. America’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports fraud risks involving both the source of investor’s money and the projects in which it is invested as part of the scheme. The GAO also suggested that mechanisms to track whether investments really meet the $500,000 and ten jobs minimum requirement for the programme are weak.  

That said, the idea, which some have recoiled at, that immigrants should be screened for their likely impact on a host country’s economy is commonplace. America’s H1-B program admits applicants on the grounds that the economy needs their skills, for example. In countries including Australia, Britain and Canada, many immigration decisions are made using a system that awards points for characteristics including education, language, experience and evidence of financial self-sufficiency.  

Paying for residency is simply another screening mechanism with the same intent—and one that is common worldwide. Allison Christians, a Law professor at McGill University, has put together a set of data on programmes that demand investments in return for the right to residence or citizenship. The programmes vary considerably in design—some ask for annual payments, others require would-be residents to demonstrate they have investment support rather than demanding investment from the applicant, for example. But there are a lot of programmes around: Ms Christians has identified 55 different jurisdictions with a cash for residency or cash for citizenship process. The average price attached is around $1.2 million, but there is a big range: at the top end, you won’t get into Russia for less than $5.4 million and Austria wants $3.3 million. But France has a $326,000 option; Britain’s cheapest programme is set at $63,000 and Sweden is a bargain at just $22,000.  

At $500,000, America’s price for buying residency looks high compared to much of Western Europe and Canada (which has a sticker price of $148,000). Given America’s relatively ungenerous safety net, which should reduce the risk of migrants becoming a burden on the state, America should drop the price of entry, by expanding the EB-5 programme rather than abandoning it.  And there is a simple fix for concerns over fraud, conflict of interest and the impact of investments. All three concerns would all be considerably reduced if, rather than investing in a particular project, applicants simply wrote a check for entry to the government.