Immigration

Golden visa programs–including Malta’s highly controversial “golden passport” scheme, which sells EU citizenship to rich foreign investors–gained significant legal protection with the decision of the EU’s highest court to issue a non-binding opinion on such a hotly debated topic. The ruling is likely to have major implications for similar programs across Europe, which have found both strong support and heavy criticism. Malta’s Golden Passport Program: A Contentious Gateway to EU Citizenship Malta’s golden EU passports program allows foreign investors to acquire the much sought-after right to live, work, and travel freely in all 27 nations of the European Union; this it does by making the significant contribution required for this right. For the minimum donation of €600,000 (around $661,590), along with other investments in property and optional donations, one can attain Maltese citizenship. It has attracted a number of high-net-worth individuals, such as Russian oligarchs, celebrities, and wealthy sports figures, who yearn to get the privilege of EU citizenship. However, the program has had its days in court due to the verdicts of the European Commission. Critics have said that such golden visa programs expose the risk of money laundering and threaten the security of the EU. In 2022, the European Commission took Malta to court, saying that selling EU citizenship for financial consideration breached the principle of sincere cooperation instituted through EU law. Malta’s Golden Visa Program Expects Legal Victory Anthony Collins, an advocate general at the Court of Justice of the EU, told that it was controversial because of an unfavorable ruling on Malta’s citizenship-by-investment scheme, saying it did not violate the laws of the EU. Collins held that the European Commission had failed to prove that there must exist “genuine links” between an EU member state and the applicant for citizenship. He stressed the fact that each country of the EU is able to decide about the specific requirements of its citizenship itself, which simply means that each nation has the right to grant EU citizenship. Such a legal opinion, not binding in nature but sure to be heavily swayed by the court’s final verdict, which is set a few months down the line. And if the court is to go by the latter’s opinion, it will then grant legal protections on golden visa programs not just to Malta but to the rest of the European Union states that have the same schemes. The Investment Migration Industry in Europe This does not make Malta an exception in issuing citizenship or residency in lieu of monetary investment. Portugal, Greece, Ireland, and Hungary have launched golden visa programs with the aim of attracting foreign investment, particularly since the European debt crisis hit them in its aftermath. The so-called golden visa programs have provided residency and sometimes even citizenship of the country, which has allowed rich people to obtain the prized free movement within the EU. A European Parliament report shows that, from 2011 to 2019, the investment migration industry raked in over €21 billion for participating European nations. The financial pluses notwithstanding, critics argue that these programs compromise the integrity of EU citizenship and can facilitate abuse. Golden Visa programs will carry critical implications in the future. While the final verdict is pending at the EU’s Court of Justice, the judgment by Collins has been a tremendous relief to Malta and many other nations trading golden passports with the EU. This case is one particular instance where the war between security concerns and ethical standards within the EU had the need for foreign investment at its center. In case of a judgment in Malta’s favor, more EU countries may continue or even enhance the citizenship-by-investment schemes they have launched. On the contrary, if the court decides in Malta’s favor, then the Cash-for-Citizenship scheme might be the end of the EU. Conclusion Malta’s golden passport program remains the lightning rod at the heart of the broader debate about the ethics and risks attached to investment migration industry practices in Europe. But with the EU top court about to deliver a final ruling on the matter, the verdict might turn out to be more than the last word on this particular program. Instead, it might actually change nations within the bloc’s approach to granting citizenship to wealthy investors. This decision will only hurt the golden visa programs in Europe, and one way or another, this move will send a message that will set precedents for years to come.

Streamlined immigration process has been improved as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada expands the exemption of certain low-risk foreign nationals for a secondary immigration medical exam until October 5, 2029. The expansion of this exemption, established two years ago, for another five years will further smooth out the application process and better service eligible immigrants. What is the Exemption Policy? The exemption includes foreign nationals who have a new or pending permanent or temporary residence, or permanent resident visa application filed from within Canada. One will only be exempt if all of the following are met: Previous IME completed: Applicants would need to have completed their IME, regardless of the fact that it has already expired, within the last five years.Public Health Safety: The applicant shall not pose a risk to public health or safety. He should declare himself to the agencies responsible for public health as a further instance of monitoring. This public policy has already processed over 286,000 applicants without bureaucratic delays and processing times. By extending this exemption, IRCC hopes to maximize operational efficiency while continuing collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada in the monitoring of effective results of public health. Relevance of the Extension This expansion in policy is hence additional evidence of the integration of efficient processing of immigration with safety concerns over public health, much more so considering all the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Being exempt from the complexity and otherwise requiring not much plus as possible from them allows IRCC to ensure that these low-risk applicants could easily shift to their new life in Canada with no undue delay. And while it is true that candidates not qualified for exemption will still have to undergo the usual health screening procedures, which include a new IME, the IRCC will educate them directly on how to proceed properly. Impact on Immigrant Processing This exemption is part of a wider strategy to strengthen Canada’s immigration system because of the enhanced demand for immigration services. It is both a blessing that smooths out the application procedure of applicants and frees up resources in the public health system to attend to other urgent health monitoring needs. In contemplation, this policy shift is a country that continues to update its immigration tenets for the reality in the now with the goal of not impacting the health requirements of the public. The granting of the exemption allows an important step for a clear channel for low-risk applicants’ entry and settlement in Canada, thus contributing positively to the beautiful tapestry of the nation’s richness. Conclusion The extension of the streamlined medical exam exemption until 2029 is huge progress for the immigration policies of Canada in efficiency and safety. This approach is proactive to support the process of immigration as well as put public health first. For eligible foreign nationals in Canada, this brings a more fluid transition as well as quicker access to permanent or temporary residency. Anyone interested in finding out if they qualify or how to apply should refer to the official resources of the IRCC or seek professional advice from experienced immigration experts.

The Intra-Company Transeree program under section R205(a) of the International Mobility Program is updated in the Canada Work Permit Without LMIA. This amendment aims at facilitating the process by which the MNC transfer workers across international borders to branch offices within Canada through the updation of eligibility requirements and making the procedure less cumbersome. Today, I will share everything related to the free trade agreements tied with work permits and updates related to them in regards to Canada. What is the intra-company transferee program? The Intra-Company Transferee Program allows multinational employers to transfer key employees from their foreign operations to their Canadian branches, including executives, managers, or other workers whose special knowledge performs an essential function for the organization. Perhaps one of its major advantages is that it does not require a labor market impact assessment, which makes the process generally faster and even simpler for employers. Important Changes on the Intra-Company Transferee (ICT) Program IRCC recently put into effect the following major changes to Section R205(a) of the Intra-Company Transferee Program : 1. Clarification of Multinational CorporationOne of the most significant changes is that what constitutes a MNC is well defined.Intra-company transfers must now originate from a foreign enterprise that is part of an established multinational corporation (MNC). IRCC has given its staff specific guidelines to arrive at whether an enterprise meets the requirements and hence qualifies as an MNC in the current practice. 2. Specialized Knowledge DefinitionWhat also came apparent was what “specialized knowledge” meant. Now, officers must assess the applicant’s specialized knowledge and whether the position in Canada is at all actually in a field of expertise requiring such knowledge. This would ensure that under the Intra-Company Transferee program only the most unique, highly valuable skills are allowed into Canada. 3. Eligibility Requirements for Foreign NationalsThe new guidelines give a clearer policy about eligibility criteria to foreign nationals who wish to be admitted under the ICT program, entrusting only those fit with specific qualifications for executive, managerial, or specialized knowledge roles. 4. Consolidation of InstructionsAll instructions for ICTs under R205(a) are now consolidated into one easy-to-navigate resource page. This step will hopefully make the application process easier for officers and applicants to manage with less of a possibility for confusion or mistakes. 5. Improved requirements DocumentationThis update will focus on the need for officers to include all the evidence for ICT applications within the GCMS. An improvement of the application process through transparency and accountability is also the objective of this update. Improvements of Free Trade Agreements about the International Mobility Program The IRCC has not only updated policy changes in the Intra-Company Transferee Canada but also brought about significant changes to free trade agreements associated with the International Mobility Program. More specifically, paragraphs R186(s) and R204(a) have been updated with adopting new standards that are instituted within the following agreements : Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement CPTPP: Standard format and guidance on standardization of information and application for ICTs under each FTA so that an applicant easily navigates and standardizes the application. Each FTA will have separate pages for temporary work provisions as well as an overview page with quick reference details. The International Mobility Program The International Mobility Program is a tool designed to facilitate the mobility of international talent into Canada. Subjected to the provisions of the IMP, companies can transfer employees to work in Canada without having to undergo the process of getting an LMIA, which usually saves all the time that such a process requires. More often than not, LMIAs are needed to ensure that the hiring of a foreign worker will not adversely affect Canadian workers. This removed requirement assists in streamlining the process for companies needing to bring key talent into the country quickly and efficiently in Canada Work Permit Without LMIA. Conclusion As announced by the most recent changes in Canada’s Intra-Company Transferee Program, the country has been tirelessly striving to increase its talent intake into the country, with all eligibility standards being kept tight. IRCC clarifies definitions, consolidates resources, and enhances documentation of the program to make it accessible yet focused on bringing in the right amount of skills to be highly boosted in Canada’s economy. Thus, the relaxation on rules for transferring key employees of multinational corporations in Canada would be helpful, but applications should be considered keeping all the eligibility criteria in check. There is no doubt that as Canada continues to amend its immigration policies, the changes must be kept updated, and one should not fail to keep updated on the same issues as businesses and applicants.

Better immigration policy is needed to realize the economic benefits of immigrants, to organize orderly migration, and to alleviate the pressures it puts on states and cities-more so as the debate over immigration intensifies ahead of the next U.S. presidential election The economic impact of immigrants A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office provides some useful insights into the recent immigration surge in the U.S. Since 2020, immigrants, most of whom enter the country without lawful status, have entered the nation in very high numbers. According to the CBO, from 2026, around 8.7 million more people are anticipated to arrive in the country compared to a previous average of almost 200,000 per year prior to 2020. This “immigration surge” has already generated considerable political debate, but as the data shows, the economic impact is largely positive. First, these newcomers are expected to generate $1.2 trillion in extra federal revenue over the next decade. That number translates to raising all personal income taxes by 1 percentage point. The infusion of immigrants into the American workforce expands the labor force, increases GDP, and makes productivity better. The economic gains that may be harvested in a decade may lead to a $9 trillion increment in GDP. Need for a Good Immigration Policy In addition, the immigration system itself badly needs reform, independently of the economic payoffs. It does not recognize the need to draw in skilled workers or to devise an orderly means of admitting economic migrants and asylum seekers. Furthermore, it has to be managed so as to deter ineligible applicants from coming on the border in hope of gaining a spot. A smart immigration policy would mean increasing legal entry for individuals whose skills are in short supply in the United States. It would also increase efficiency in regulating newcomers at the local government level, which is especially important to border states. A comprehensive reform to the nation’s immigration system could generate more economic benefits for the United States while also lessening both federal and local governments’ fiscal burdens. Debunking Immigration Myths One of the important issues related to the discussion with regard to immigrants is their contribution to the economy of the country; actually, most of the people believe that immigrants, especially undocumented ones, are expenses for the economy. But again, at least according to facts, this is not as realized by the CBO. Though migrants have rights to public benefits—in Medicaid and to public schooling for their children, for example—if they have recently immigrated, their long-run contributions to the economy far outweigh such costs. In fact, with regards to the immigration surge, federal spending is supposed to increase by around $300 billion, but overall economic benefits reduce 10-year federal borrowing by $900 billion. It is also important to remember that the report of the CBO is mainly concentrated on “other foreign nationals,” which means immigrants that had not been selected on the grounds of education or skills-based choice. From this alone, the economic impact is overwhelmingly positive. Imagine how much greater it could have been for a policy of pro-immigration where skilled workers are the priority. Conclusion: A Call for Pro-Immigration Reform The United States stands at the crossroads as regards immigration policy. Without question, the country needs border control and orderly immigration. On the other hand, immigrants are needed in the U.S. workforce and by the economy because they contribute to increasing growth and productivity and reducing future labor shortages. The challenge is implementing a better immigration policy. The U.S. government should allow legal migration, focusing on the skills needed in the labor market and helping states deal with the inflow of new arrival immigrants. A well-managed immigration system will help the U.S. remain one of the global leaders, with an economy that is robust and productive—indeed, helping prove that immigrants far from being liabilities are the country’s national assets.

The 2024 election immigration policy has taken on additional importance with the intensified harsh rhetoric by Donald Trump on immigration, particularly as migrants across the US-Mexico border have increased. A painting of a bleak picture often made by a series of graphic and fear-driven language paints the picture of those migrants as involved in mass violence in the country. Most people believe that all this rhetoric is more political than anything else and is meant to instill fear in order to drive some votes. Such rhetoric has controversy and concern both sides of the equation. Trump’s immigration rhetoric turns dark. For years, immigration has been a staple of Trump’s campaign speeches, but as the 2024 United States election season heats up, the rhetoric has changed dramatically. In recent stump speeches, he lied that migrants crossing the southern border are “slaughtering” people all over the United States, using graphic and exaggerated descriptions of violence. Speaking at a rally in Michigan in September, Trump told his audience that migrants are “cutting throats” and “grabbing young girls,” claims with no basis in fact but infinitely empowering him with a sense of fear amongst his supporters. Even his campaign failed to produce any supporting evidence for these claims, and experts have pointed out that many studies have concluded that the number of documented and undocumented immigrants is no higher than the number of crimes committed by native-born Americans. In spite of that, Trump continues skillfully linking migrants to violence, crime, and chaos, which resonates well among many Republican voters who care about border security. Migrant Crime Claims: Fact or Fiction? Among one of the hot topics that Trump finds himself using in speeches revolves around the notion of migrants causing crime to increase. The truth is that there really is no real evidence that can be presented to validate this argument. Indeed, research after research concludes that immigrants, both legal and illegal, show a much lower crime possibility than a born-and-bred citizen. However, the story of Trump continues to win its game, as there have been reports of most polls conducted with the US electorate—to cite one, including some number of independents—considering the statement at issue believed to be true: that immigrants have connections to crime. This false narrative may persuade or mobilize undecided voters because border security is one of the favorite topics for some Americans. In fact, KFF reports that 80% of Americans had heard the false claim that an influx of migrants has led to an increase in violent crime; 74% had heard that migrants were taking jobs away from U.S. citizens. The Political Strategy Behind Trump’s rhetoric With the 2024 elections approaching, Trump’s rhetoric becomes apocalyptic. Over the past several speeches, he portrayed migrants as “savages,” “predators,” and “killers.” For him, they were a threat to American families and communities. Old news for Trump certainly, yet all things considered, it is a significant escalation in graphic detail and intensity of such rhetoric. Experts say these hyper-violent words serve a twofold purpose: to mobilize his base and to frame immigration as a matter of national security. If migrants are dangerous criminals, then voters will forget about concerns like inflation or healthcare, where Trump may be more severely weak in voter perception. This strategy also plays into a larger narrative of fear that has proven to be an incredibly effective tactic in previous elections, particularly to voters who are making the selection around law and order. The Impact on Migrants and Immigrant Communities It reaches far out to the immigrant communities with the rhetoric of Trump. The everyday rants on migrants as criminals quite repeatedly fuel the sentiments of xenophobia towards those races and foster the divisions within American society. Immigrant rights activists have already begun to warn that this kind of rhetoric does not just dehumanize migrants but also creates hostile environments for those immigrants living in the country, especially within border states or its surrounding communities with high numbers of immigration. Besides the conspiracy-mongering, Trump’s campaign has also obscured the difference between legal and illegal immigration. While campaigning in Ohio, Trump lied that Haitian immigrants lawfully in the country were eating household pets, a racistly laced remark. This policy of casting all immigrants—documented or undocumented—as threats ultimately serves to justify broader anti-immigrant policies, playing to people’s fearfulness. A Dark Speech with a Clear Purpose Trump’s words have not gone unnoticed, nor has he denied them. He’s characterized at least one of his speeches—in Wisconsin recently—a “dark speech.” Graphic language, combined with his speaking style of focusing on crimes committed against young, typically white women, taps into longstanding historical tropes about race and violence. And so, using fear and racist appeals, Trump looks to solidify his image as the candidate that will protect Americans from this perceived foreign threat. How successful this will be at the polls remains to be seen, but it’s crystal clear that his focus on immigration and border security will dominate his campaign in the final stretch to Election Day. Conclusion In the run-up to the 2024 election, the rhetoric from Donald Trump on immigration has grown darker and, indeed, more graphic and false regarding the threat migrants pose. His linking of immigration and crime is a way of trying to reignite fears among the voters, something he has been able to do successfully in the past. This kind of rhetoric has been overwhelmingly disproven and his critics believe is not only costly but also detrimental to the millions of immigrants living in the U.S. Ultimately, Trump’s heightened rhetoric may resonate with one portion of the electorate, but it also runs the risk of further bifurcating the nation on a long-contentious issue.

To this end, Canada recently issued updated guidelines for the International Mobility Program specifically for intra-company transferees, or ICTs. IRCC published a guiding document that outlines rules and may make it easier to transfer employees from an associated enterprise abroad to the Canadian branch, effective as of October 3. Key changes to the ICT guidelines The new updates deal especially with subsection R205(a) of Canadian Interests – Significant Benefit – Intra-Company Transferees. The new important changes, according to IRCC: Definition of Multinational Corporations (MNCs): It clarifies that ICTs must come from an existing foreign enterprise of a multinational corporation. It also gives considerable criteria to assess whether an enterprise qualifies to be an MNC. Specialized Knowledge: The term “specialized knowledge” is defined further. The rule gives more information on what one is to consider in determining whether the applicant has specialized knowledge or if the position entails having such knowledge.Eligibility Criteria: More transparent eligibility criteria for foreign nationals applying for ICT permits have been provided by the revised rules.Consolidated Instructions: Instructions on ICTs under R205(a) have been consolidated into one page, and applicants and employers can easily access a single source of reference.Prevention of Misuse of ICTs: This guidance explains that ICTs are not to be considered an instrument for transferring a generic workforce to affiliate companies in Canada.Documentation and Evidence: The refresh highlights that all evidence related to ICT applications should be in the GCMS. Free Trade Agreements and ICTs Reflecting alterations to paragraph R205(a), IRCC also refreshed the officer guidance for paragraphs R186(s) and R204(a) relating to several free trade agreements under the International Mobility Program. Free trade agreements are as follows: Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific PartnershipThe harmonization of these guidelines ensures that there is coherence to the assessment of ICTs applied between these various trade agreements. Understand the International Mobility Program International Mobility Program: This program also enables the importation of foreign nationals by employers in Canada through the intra-company transfer without a Labour Market Impact Assessment. Thus, this exemption creates a streamlined process because LMIAs require that employers demonstrate that hiring a foreign worker would have no impact or positive impact on the labor force of Canada. Conclusion These updates reflect commitment to improving efficiency and clarity of guidance for businesses in Canada’s immigration process. The IRCC defines, refines, and considers the application process itself to help it develop such a definition and eligibility criteria with the aim of helping multinational corporations better manage their workforce while avoiding abuse of the program.

Portugal migrant labor laws have been made strict lately and put a halt to the practice that allowed illegally arrived migrant workers to stay and to get work permits. This approach follows the European policies as stated by Deputy Minister Rui Armindo Freitas, who oversees immigration in the country. As such, according to Freitas, the previous system attracted many illegal migrant workers since, under that system, legal entry into Portugal was allowed first and necessary documentation followed later. He explained that closing this loophole would be a matter of extreme urgency because there are already about 400,000 applications for legalization pending at the agency for immigration, AIMA. The Deputy Minister plans to have all backlogged applications sorted by June of next year in order to make the application process easier. Since June, migrants who want to work in Portugal must make their residence permit applications with the Portuguese embassies or consulates abroad, which makes it tougher for most coming from countries that lack a Portuguese diplomatic presence. For instance, farm laborers and harvesting assistants, coming from Nepal and Bangladesh, are required to visit New Delhi, India, to get their visas. Effect on Economy of Portugal and Labor Force The economy of Portugal is significantly based on foreign migrant labor. Among such migrants, Asian workers are the most significant part of it. They work in agriculture, picking up broccoli and olives for almost negligible wages and picking berries for other European countries’ markets. A considerable number of Brazilians are engaged in the hospitality industry, working as waiters and waitresses in restaurants and cafes, and a good number of Africans are engaged in the construction sector. Traditionally, many migrant workers have entered Portugal with little or no paper to present to the authorities. Having been allowed into the country to work, they waited for several years in order to procure residence permits, and in that time they paid into taxes and social security. A tightening of the law now presents problems for those already in Portugal and difficulties for potential migrants who wish to seek a better life. Illegal immigration has sparked much hot discussion throughout Europe, and Portugal is no exception. Debates over immigration policies have heated up even further, mainly because far-right populist parties have emerged to push tighter immigration controls. Conclusion Recent modifications made to Portugal’s migrant labor laws represent a drastic change in the course the country is taking regarding immigration and will be put in place based on stricter rules and better organization. However, these measures designed to ensure the country complies with the more universal standards of Europe also bode poorly for the future of the migrant workforce; workers have played a large role in the country’s economy for over a century.

Germany economic problems have come to a head, and changes are desperately needed in the way it approaches immigration. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has just emphasized how bringing more productive talent into the country from abroad is an imperative for helping turn its economy around. Given the potential output growth now predicted to fall to less than 0.4% in coming years because of the difficulties related to the graying population and a shrinking workforce, reforms are both necessary and late. Implications of an Aging Labor Force The demographic shift is causing an aging workforce in Germany. This may lock the country’s economy into a slower-growth path. The coalition government under Scholz realizes that the gap in the labor force can only be narrowed by actions designed to lure skilled laborers. This is growing increasingly difficult lately, and this is especially so given the rise of anti-migrant elements in the political landscape. He said in a speech given at a conference on labor at the chancellery, “No country in the world can sustain long-term economic growth with a shrinking labor force.” His statement underlines the essential relationship between the strong labor market and economic growth. Insertion of New Immigrants into the Labor Force The German government is now pushing for the accelerated integration of newcomers in the labor market with the aim of stemming the looming shortage. While the economic factors are not so benevolent at the moment, it has been evident that some Ukrainians and others seeking asylum elsewhere have started getting jobs. Scholz spoke about this and insisted on tapping the potential of every single person who is already on the soil of the country. Chancellor also mentioned new immigration law and plans for the booster of the growth of jobs, which he called the “job turbo.” This package encompasses the easing of language requirements aimed at making it easier to gain employment to attract immigrants more quickly. Economic Outlook and Challenges Going Forward Quoting Bloomberg, Berlin is going to probably decrease its 2024 economic forecast to stagnation from previous growth of 0.3%. It would confirm another tough year for the German economy with the added pressure of increasing gas prices and difficulties in shifting to electric vehicles. The severe impact of such economic challenges weighs on the great companies like Volkswagen and Intel, who are quite concerned about their future investments in Germany. Furthermore, the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House might cause more disturbances in the economy that would probably depress even more the level of GDP. Conclusion Chancellor Scholz’s high-skilled migration with a purpose, part of the economic revival strategy, displays an all-around understanding of the complicated association between workforce demographics and sound economic health. Both the aging and volatile nature of a degrading economy might be balanced by skilled migrants, a key to sustainable growth in years to come in Germany.

The EB-5 green card program was created with the aim of attracting foreign investment in the U.S. and lately has become popular with high-net-worth individuals seeking expedient permanent residency. Although this program was not as smooth as one had hoped for, certain losses through malpractices from regional centers or project failures have befallen a few investors. Due to this and other pertinent reasons, the USCIS of the U.S. has revisited its policy to better protect and allow flexibility for real and honest investors who participate in the EB-5 program. USCIS Policy Update for EB-5 Investors The updated USCIS policy manual is very important, especially for good faith investors. In this respect, such actual participants in the EB-5 program with good faith are now rescued from the loss of eligibility towards a green card because of events presumably outside their control, such as the debarment or termination of regional centers or new commercial enterprises. The new policy targets fraud protection of investors, under which even when unforeseen problems arise, eligibility for a green card is safeguarded. In the words of Carolyn Lee, an experienced immigration attorney who has years of experience dealing with investment-based visas, actual benefits lie in keeping their priority dates, protecting them from “age-out” scenarios for their children, and protection against material changes that might jeopardize their cases. This is a giant leap forward toward assuring safety to otherwise rule-abiding investors. EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act, 2022: Safeguarding the Program Many of these new reforms target increasing program transparency and compliance. The bill also protects legitimate investors who participate in the EB-5 program from unfair judgment due to the actions of others. More importantly, the new guidance clarifies that those who had actual knowledge of fraud involvement will not be protected by section 203(b)(5)(M) of the INA. Furthermore, if a regional center is terminated or debarred, investors can now re-associate their NCEs with another regional center which may be anywhere in the United States. The above seems to give an investor an opportunity to continue an unrestricted pursuit of a green card without losing ground, thus providing much-needed protection against external disruption. EB-5 Investment Requirements and Route to Green Card Under the EB-5 program, investors are required to make a minimum investment of $800,000 in the TEAs or infrastructure development. However, for projects located outside the TEAs, the minimum is $1,050,000. Additionally, their investment should be expected to create at least ten jobs to qualify for a green card. For most investors, indirect investments through regional centers will do because they have started initiating projects such as constructing hotels or commercial developments. Despite the intricacy of the EB-5 program, the program remains highly attractive to high-net-worth individuals, particularly those from India, China, and Vietnam. This demand is not expected to abate with the annual cap estimated to be around 10,000 visas and the country-specific limits imposed. Conclusion: Safeguarding Genuine Investors under the EB-5 Program Such USCIS policy changes are a positive step for honest EB-5 investors. The U.S. government is reiterating its commitment to making the EB-5 program a reliable pathway to permanent residency by offering protections against fraud and misconduct against the investments and efforts of investors.

UK immigration policy has thus far been at the centre of the contest given Rishi Sunak’s appointment as Tory leader and Leader of the Opposition. Of the two main contenders, Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch, both are making immigration policy central to their campaigns and are calling for tighter visa restrictions on Indian nationals unless the country agrees to take back illegal migrants. Tougher Immigration Edge: Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick Proposes Stricter Indian Visas Former immigration minister and leadership favourite Robert Jenrick has identified India as the country he believes should be placed with stronger controls over visas. While 250,000 visas were issued last year to Indian nationals for work and study, amongst other reasons, there are an estimated 100,000 Indians residing illegally in the UK. Although the UK and India have a 2021 Migration and Mobility Partnership that seeks to facilitate the return of illegal migrants, deportations are still so minimal as to return annually a few hundred Indian nationals. Jenrick has further argued that unless India cooperates with taking back its nationals, the UK ought to enforce visa restrictions in all categories, which would then compel India to comply. Jenrick’s policy is echoed by many in the Conservative Party, which wants greater control over immigration. He referred to UK visa leniency with those countries that do not assist with repatriation: “The UK ought not to be taken for mugs.” Badenoch’s take on cultural clashes and immigration Kemi Badenoch, the closest rival of Jenrick, has also criticised the contemporary immigration system, emphasising the need for the assimilation of migrants in British culture. Last month, while speaking to the BBC, Badenoch cited the flare-up in Leicester in 2022 following the India-Pakistan Asia Cup cricket match where cultural disputes within the mother countries are being taken to the streets of the UK. She again emphasised that aliens should leave behind their old cultural wars while visiting Britain. Badenoch’s comments have gained wider publicity for being socio-integrationist and the integration of people of other nationalities into British life. Though she did not directly shoot her guns at Indian visas, her remarks perfectly fit into the broader rhetoric of the Conservative Party demanding stricter rules on immigration. Race to Leadership and Future Immigration Policy After the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, the battle for the leadership contenders will really heat up, and Jenrick and Badenoch emerge as the most prominent. The entire conference session will bring in all other contenders to make their pitches to the MPs before this contest would then be drawn down to two candidates who would go into an online vote by the members. The winner of the election is to be announced on November 2, 2024. As the campaign heats up, immigration is going to remain centre stage, especially in the light of visa policies and the diplomatic relations with a country like India. The winner, in any case, would turn the tide in immigration policy in the UK for many years to come. Conclusion: Indian Visas in the UK: Where do they go from here? As the UK changes its leadership, the issue of immigration has risen to the surface, but especially that of the one targeting Indian visas. Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch have demonstrated a will to be tighter in their controls of immigration, and the approach differed slightly. Jenrick’s focus is going to be on deportations and visa restrictions; that will definitely have severe impacts on Indians wanting to study, work, or simply visit the UK. Badenoch’s focus is on social cohesion, and that will also have an indirect impact on the future immigration policy. As the Conservative Party preps up to elect its new leader, the Indian visa and immigration policy remain very much in the spotlight.