Green to Gold: The New Path to US Citizenship
- Legally Speaking
- Apr 4
- 4 min read
By Shivani Reddy on April 4th, 2025
Introducing the “Trump Gold Card”—your fast track to U.S. citizenship, but only if you can shell out a hefty $5 million. On February 25th, 2025, President Donald Trump introduced this bold and controversial plan, offering a one-time payment for anyone worldwide to claim the coveted title of U.S. citizen.
The idea of investment-based citizenship isn’t novel. In 1990, Congress established the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program to boost the U.S. economy. This program offered a path to citizenship through two key requirements: making a “necessary investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States” and planning to “create or preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers.”
This program was then reauthorized under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 through September 30th, 2027. This act would ensure that any changes made to the program would require congressional approval. However, during a February 26th conference, Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnik discussed the implementation of the gold card. In this conversation, the idea of “modifying the EB-5 agreement” was tossed around. But what does this mean? Is this even allowed?
The EB-5 program reflects Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority over naturalization, as outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… throughout the United States”. This ensures that the process for foreign nationals to become U.S. citizens remains under federal control.
Modifying the EB-5 program requires congressional approval, meaning the proposed change must go through a detailed legislative process. A bill introducing the modification must be presented in either the House or the Senate, followed by committee review where members analyze and may amend the proposal. Once cleared by the committee, it is debated and voted on by both chambers. If there are discrepancies between the House and Senate versions, a conference committee resolves them, creating a final version that both chambers must approve. The president then decides to sign the bill into law or veto it. President Trump’s proposal to bypass this critical legislative process, disregarding the checks and balances that ensure lawful decision-making, is extremely harmful.
Importantly, eliminating the EB-5 program would undermine Congress's ability to legislate conditions for citizenship and immigration, as explicitly outlined in the Naturalization Clause. This seemingly small change could set a dangerous precedent for restricting Congress's constitutional powers in this area. Ultimately, scrapping the program would not only be unlawful but also unconstitutional.
The second problem with President Trump’s proposal to sell more than a million gold cards is that it is unlawful to exceed the cap set up by Congress. Congress established green card caps and categories through the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), enacted in 1952, serves as the foundation of U.S. immigration law. It established the framework for green card caps and categories, which determine how many immigrant visas can be issued annually and under what eligibility criteria. These caps and categories are designed to manage immigration levels and prioritize specific groups, such as family members of U.S. citizens, skilled workers, refugees, etc.
The third issue, though not unconstitutional, presents a significant moral dilemma. This approach risks setting a concerning precedent by prioritizing wealth over everything else, potentially altering U.S. immigration policy in a way that benefits the elite at the expense of broader societal needs.
Policy decisions should be informed by the mistakes of others. Many European nations, including the UK, Cyprus, Latvia, and Malta, implemented “golden visa” programs that attracted investments from affluent individuals. While these initiatives offered a pathway to citizenship for the wealthy, they were also exploited by criminals for money laundering and other illicit activities. In response, several countries began shutting down these programs one by one. Given these cautionary tales, why is the U.S. considering opening the door to such schemes when the era of citizenship-for-purchase has fallen out of favor elsewhere?
In summary, the President cannot override or ignore an act of Congress, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to create immigration laws governing admission, exclusion, and naturalization and the Supreme Court has confirmed this "plenary" power, meaning only Congress can pass or amend such laws. While the President can propose new immigration policies, only Congress has the power to legislate or amend existing laws. The President's role is limited to enforcing these laws through agencies like U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
The controversial gold card proposal raises many questions: Is the gold card legal? Is it sustainable? Is it constitutional? In essence, the Gold Card visa program underscores the fragile state of the United States, where citizenship can be treated as a commodity for the right price. By prioritizing economic gains over cultural and national unity, this initiative showcases a transactional approach to governance. While it offers potential financial advantages, it risks reducing U.S. citizenship to a monetary transaction.
Resources:
Comments