I have worked in the United States for 10 years on a non-immigrant visa (I have no other way to work in the United states and 7 years of H1-B lottery have yielded nothing). I have paid more than six figures in taxes to the Feds, as well as contributed to an American business and being an active community member. I have no path or way to immigrate to the United States nor can I use by past decade of contributions in any way. Its a slap in the face when I read about people literally buying there way in and corrupt politicians and businessman manipulating the system without consequence.
This how you know things are broken when someone who's been here a decade, paying their way and contributing, gets tossed out as soon as the wind blows a different direction. We're just shooting ourselves in the foot and missing out on a lot of good people.
Its a mistake to assume that the American system is fair or corruption free. To a certain extent, corruption and shadiness exist everywhere.
America is a great country but you kinda have to assume the worst and live life accordingly. Which means hustling all the time, looking at alternative ways etc. I know a whole bunch of folks who have married specifically for immigration reasons (some of them admit it, most don't).
I'm not saying that you do any of those things and I empathize with you. I guess the only place where I fault you is in assuming the American system is fair and corruption free, which it totally is not.
I'd wager most marriages (by a large margin) that result in a green card happened at that specific time because of the green card. Otherwise they'd have waited longer. I guess it's technically illegal but so is jaywalking in NYC.
>Its a slap in the face when I read about people literally buying there way in
Why? The US is a capitalistic society and more so than other countries such as those in Europe. Presumably you liked the US because it is such a capitalistic society with high pay, slightly lower taxes, etc. Paying to get in is pretty much the definition of capitalism.
So in your world view, bribery should be absolutely allowed than? You have a piece of land I want, but the law prevents me from stealing it from you and you won't sell. So I grease the hand of the local authorities and get them to take it via eminent domain, pay you some cash for compensation and just take it. I have more capital so its fair... We go to court, but since I have more money I'll just grease the hand of the judge.
I quoted a specific part of what you said for a reason. The only dubious thing they did was get the cap for investment lowered from $1m to $500k. The lower cap does not change the fundamental issue you stated which was paying for citizenship. Merely changes how much they had to pay.
So on that point, buying your way in is not bribery if the legal system allows it. It's merely paying for a service from the government. For example, I pay the government to register my car, to get permits for work I'm doing or get a concealed gun permit. In this case they're paying for citizenship. This is also merely one way to pay for citizenship, little different than the usual "pay $100+k for a US college degree so my child gets OTP and can apply for a H1B."
I said slightly lower and overall it's true depending on the exact US state and European country being compared. For high income brackets which is presumably what an immigrant would be aiming for. Also some countries tax individuals while others tax employers for the same thing which makes comparisons difficult. Then there's VAT which is objectively larger than even the largest US sales tax.
> Paying to get in is pretty much the definition of capitalism
It's not. Paying to get in like this is depriving not only OP but more importantly, the intended beneficiaries of such schemes.
As the article points out, the total number of visas "may have easily claimed an entire year’s worth of visas issued under EB-5". Which leads to:
"The cap on visas also serves as a cap on available financing. If a project like Hudson Yards accounts for a whole year’s worth of EB-5 visas, it also consumes a year’s worth of financing meant for projects in low-opportunity places."
What about the 'payment' that generations of residents of Harlem made? If this was done fairly, neither the residents of low-opportunity places nor OP would feel slapped.
A friend of mine worked in the US for 17 years under various visas, but never managed to get her green card. She is facing retirement without the social security she was taxed to fund. She also won't get anything of usable value from the old-age pension program in her country of origin since she worked out of country for so many years. A real immigration trap.
When someone goes to the US to work, aren’t they doing it to be paid wages they wouldn’t be able to make in their home country? That in and of itself is a nice benefit.
I don't think everyone immigrating to the U.S. does so for 'jobs/money'. Plenty of people immigrate for family and relationship reasons, many from first-world countries.
No. Even if it were true, how does that justify not getting the social security that was paid into? Costs are higher in the states too. Also, you have an odd assumption that people who move to the US for family or social reasons won’t be working. How do you think people support themselves?
Canada. My understanding was that green card holders get social security, but non permanent residents don't, no matter how many years they've been working in the states. But if in fact the visa status at time of working or time of collection doesn't matter, then that would be welcome news indeed.
Also the Canadian version of SS is a sliding scale based on how many years you paid into it, I implicitly assumed it's the same for the US but only now realized that might not be the case.
The US and several other countries have reciprocal agreements with regards to payments into social security/retirement programs; did your friend neither save for retirement nor comes from a country with a reciprocal agreement?
I was in the neighborhood the weekend it opened and strolled through. Thing that struck me was that there was no seating almost anywhere. People were sitting on the floor and it felt like a weird refugee area.
There's no seating because you're not meant to sit. A lot of public space these days is designed to be hostile for that use, so that undesirables like the homeless don't linger, but in the process it becomes hostile to everybody.
A lot of public-facing plazas are meant to be ornamental or monumental and nothing more, which is quite sad.
He literally filmed what people actually did in public spaces, and came up with great guidelines to make them enjoyable.
Architects study this is school. As you say, whenever it isn't implemented, it is because they specifically chose not to, not because they don't know better.
And the parks will give you a ticket if you sit on a bench after sunset. I've gotten them for taking a rest on the way to walking between work and my parking garage.
There's absolutely no entertainment there whatsoever. No movie theater, no play-centers for your kids to play, no public seating... and you need a ticket to walk around the structures. What drunk architect designed this place?
The summary is that through some insane gerrymandering, the Hudson Yards project is lumped in with a bunch of low-income areas in Harlem. This means that foreign investors only need to invest $500k to qualify for a visa program that would normally require a $1M investment.
What's unclear from the article is how extensively this exception was used (that is, how many <$1M investments were accepted).
The article says there were 3,200 foreign investors who qualified for the EB-5 through Hudson Yards, for a total of $1.2B invested. That's an average of $375k per investor, which makes no sense -- $500k is the floor. It might be that the 3,200 number was derived by dividing the $1.6B (that includes the still-accepting-investors phase 3) by the $500k requirement for the TEA (Targeted Employment Area). Without real stats it's hard to see how bad this is -- "buying your way in" is maybe a tough pill to swallow for people who have tried to immigrate, but the $1M EB-5 path is open regardless of zoning shenanigans.
I feel differently about people cutting the immigration line by paying a tax than by loaning money to a high-end development. It's not about what it cost them, it's about where the money goes.
Usually the 500k is an interest free loan to the developer so it doesn't cost much unless the developer scams you or goes bust which has happened a fair bit. On the other hand it doesn't really hurt the US much to let a few wealthy investors live there.
>In the last three years, the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission has brought hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of actions against EB-5 fraudsters, including: a $350 million assets freeze against a Vermont ski resort, a $79 million charge against an unregistered Boca Raton, Florida broker-dealer, a $125 million asset freeze against a Seattle skyscraper developer, a $68 million judgment against a U.S. energy company, and an $89 million fraud case against a Chicago immigration attorney. (Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2018/08/20/what...)
One unfortunate thing for the investor is that as well as losing money they can lose the green card and get kicked out.
Let's say permanent residency for the family has a value, say $100,000. Can one make a scheme where multiple people pool their money together into a fund, which goes under the name of the lucky EB-5 investor? The EB-5 investor pays $100,000 out of pocket, and this goes to the other investors, who get 20% returns! Essentially, the EB-5 investor uses others as a financing option to buy a green card without needing $500k upfront.
$100,000 is almost there near the correct figure. For context, guys from Punjab India spend upfront $50,000 for journey from home to USA, Via south america & then Mexico, reach US, spend or agree to anything between $10-40k bail bond, start earning & paying off all this.
Why's it bad? I think immigrants bring a lot into this country and we should have more immigrants. And if you're worried about immigrants stressing the welfare system, this method selects for those with greater means and less likely to rely on these programs
This isn't about immigration. It's bad because this program was designed to inject investment in to economically depressed areas with high unemployment, not downtown Manhattan.
This also means the investments are not as "risky" as likely was intended. They'll almost certainly make it back, with dividends, because its NYC not rural Arkansas.
Also from article, there is a cap of 10,000 for EB-5 visas, and visas for family members count against the cap.
So it is possible that Hudson Yards sucked up an entire year of visas and investment intended to support poorer areas, like Harlem itself, that is Harlem for real, not the crazy map which was shown in the article.
Under EB5 you can get green cards for the wife and kids too so probably there were 2400 investments of $500k and 800 spouse/kids. There is no motivation to invest more than the minimum as there are quite a lot of strings attached. Something like 98% of the investors are Chinese. I looked at doing it myself - its actually not a bad deal if you want a green card and have the money.
I guess it varies by the scheme but the ones I've seen are loans that don't pay interest for a start. Wikipedia has info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa
"Which terrible is the real terrible" can be problematic debate.
Still, I'd say the original claim that this visa program could help low income neighborhoods deserves entry on the list of terribles along with it's overt hijacking.
"EB-5 is supposed to be a way to jumpstart investment in remote rural areas, or distressed urban ones". And most of the investors apparently are from China. Is China really strategically investing in important infrastructure all over the globe?
Mmm, no, these people have no interest in that per se. They’re trying to buy individual access to the United States. The lack of interest in renovating dilapidated infrastructure is also underlined by the topic of the article, which is how these funds were actually invested in luxury real estate.
I don't really understand the point of an urban TEA at all, at least in a thriving city in the midst of a housing bubble like New York. It sounds like a way to just directly funnel funds to gentrification projects.
What a wonderful and equitable world globalism has created. The wealthy can just buy citizenship while the poor, the desperate and the refugees languish pretty much stateless. At this point a wealthy chinese, saudi or israeli citizen is more of an "american" than a poor kid born in the rust belt. At least the government and the elites value these wealthy foreigners more than any poor citizen here in the states.
That’s not what’s going on at all. You think that if Hudson Yards wasn’t built, Harlem would somehow get all that money? That’s not how it works, it’s not a zero-sum game.
That's a fair point. But have you considered that maybe Harlem would be hard pressed to find investors, even if the investors got a Visa? It would only take away investment from other areas if a) all the investment visa spots are fully allocated and b) If the investors would have given the money to some low-income community instead.
I'm certainly not an expert on this, but it sounds plausible to me that at least one of the aforementioned conditions is not true.
According to the article there's a 15 year waiting list for these Visas for Chinese investors (it's not clear FTA why it would differ based on country of origin).
It sounds like there's enough demand for this program to work (mostly) as intended.
I’m not sure what is so bad about this. Hudson Yards got money, investors got visas. Why is this a problem? It’s not like it’s taking investment from low income nrighborhoods: it’s not a zero sum game.
85 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadAmerica is a great country but you kinda have to assume the worst and live life accordingly. Which means hustling all the time, looking at alternative ways etc. I know a whole bunch of folks who have married specifically for immigration reasons (some of them admit it, most don't).
I'm not saying that you do any of those things and I empathize with you. I guess the only place where I fault you is in assuming the American system is fair and corruption free, which it totally is not.
To be perfectly clear, this is immigration fraud and it’s extremely illegal.
Why? The US is a capitalistic society and more so than other countries such as those in Europe. Presumably you liked the US because it is such a capitalistic society with high pay, slightly lower taxes, etc. Paying to get in is pretty much the definition of capitalism.
So on that point, buying your way in is not bribery if the legal system allows it. It's merely paying for a service from the government. For example, I pay the government to register my car, to get permits for work I'm doing or get a concealed gun permit. In this case they're paying for citizenship. This is also merely one way to pay for citizenship, little different than the usual "pay $100+k for a US college degree so my child gets OTP and can apply for a H1B."
It's not. Paying to get in like this is depriving not only OP but more importantly, the intended beneficiaries of such schemes.
As the article points out, the total number of visas "may have easily claimed an entire year’s worth of visas issued under EB-5". Which leads to:
"The cap on visas also serves as a cap on available financing. If a project like Hudson Yards accounts for a whole year’s worth of EB-5 visas, it also consumes a year’s worth of financing meant for projects in low-opportunity places."
What about the 'payment' that generations of residents of Harlem made? If this was done fairly, neither the residents of low-opportunity places nor OP would feel slapped.
Did the U.S. change the rules on her, or could she have seen this problem coming?
You come here, you work, and you pay social security. That’s how it works.
You have the odd assumption everyone is entitled to the social security they pay.
If people don’t like the rules they can find another country to work in.
Also the Canadian version of SS is a sliding scale based on how many years you paid into it, I implicitly assumed it's the same for the US but only now realized that might not be the case.
https://www.ssa.gov/international/agreement_descriptions.htm...
Having been there, financing is but one of its many horrors. NYC is great for many reasons. Having high end airport malls is not one of them.
A lot of public-facing plazas are meant to be ornamental or monumental and nothing more, which is quite sad.
https://www.pps.org/article/wwhyte
He literally filmed what people actually did in public spaces, and came up with great guidelines to make them enjoyable.
Architects study this is school. As you say, whenever it isn't implemented, it is because they specifically chose not to, not because they don't know better.
The plazas at Herald Square and Times Square also have limited seating, but there the main limit is space.
The lack of public seating makes the place weird/uncomfortable to visit though.
What's unclear from the article is how extensively this exception was used (that is, how many <$1M investments were accepted).
The article says there were 3,200 foreign investors who qualified for the EB-5 through Hudson Yards, for a total of $1.2B invested. That's an average of $375k per investor, which makes no sense -- $500k is the floor. It might be that the 3,200 number was derived by dividing the $1.6B (that includes the still-accepting-investors phase 3) by the $500k requirement for the TEA (Targeted Employment Area). Without real stats it's hard to see how bad this is -- "buying your way in" is maybe a tough pill to swallow for people who have tried to immigrate, but the $1M EB-5 path is open regardless of zoning shenanigans.
But the government could also cut some other tax, putting a small amount of money into everyone’s pocket relatively equally.
To the visa buyer its irrelevant, it has the same cost wherever it goes.
I think some of the money in question even ended up in DC condos.
One unfortunate thing for the investor is that as well as losing money they can lose the green card and get kicked out.
This also means the investments are not as "risky" as likely was intended. They'll almost certainly make it back, with dividends, because its NYC not rural Arkansas.
So it is possible that Hudson Yards sucked up an entire year of visas and investment intended to support poorer areas, like Harlem itself, that is Harlem for real, not the crazy map which was shown in the article.
Can you give more information here? Is there a duration for which you cannot earn income on the investment or something?
The article says
>Related solicited investments from some 3,200 foreign visa-seekers
It's unclear to me what the definition of "solicited" is.
Still, I'd say the original claim that this visa program could help low income neighborhoods deserves entry on the list of terribles along with it's overt hijacking.
... or in Harlem apparently.
It is a little infuriating that they are, essentially, stealing from impoverished rural and urban areas.
If true, then this scheme is indeed taking opportunity away from Harlem and other areas it was intended to help.
I'm certainly not an expert on this, but it sounds plausible to me that at least one of the aforementioned conditions is not true.
It sounds like there's enough demand for this program to work (mostly) as intended.
Maybe we should start immigrating in a middle class.