Us' Golden Card 'visa: Can it save the national debt crisis?

Recently, the United States has proposed a "Gold Card" visa program, aiming to boost economic growth. It seems like a "smart" move. Trump proudly announced in the Oval Office that the plan will attract foreign nationals by selling $5 million "immigrant gold cards." He claimed it would not only stimulate employment but also bring in huge amounts of money to help the government address the increasingly severe national debt issue. The target is to sell 10 million "gold cards," which makes one wonder if the U.S. plans to rely on this "buying residency" method to keep its economy running.

The newly launched "Gold Card" program, which solely focuses on selling residency rights, has sparked a great deal of controversy. It seems that the U.S. government is no longer satisfied with traditional ways of attracting investors but has instead opted for a more direct approach—selling identity. U.S. Commerce Secretary Ross stated that the project will help reduce risks related to the legitimacy of funding sources since the government can directly control the flow of money. However, this claim has not completely alleviated concerns, and it has raised doubts about whether the government has sufficient regulatory measures to ensure that these wealthy investors’ funds are not coming from gray areas or being used as tools for money laundering by certain interest groups.

Behind the "Gold Card" project lies the ongoing national debt crisis in the U.S. At the end of last year, the U.S. national debt had surpassed $36 trillion, reaching a historic high. Faced with such a heavy debt burden, Trump seems to believe that attracting investments from high-net-worth individuals will provide a quick solution for the government. This plan appears "rational" on the surface, but in reality, relying on wealthy individuals’ investments to relieve national debt pressure raises serious doubts about its long-term effectiveness. After all, the core of the debt issue lies in the imbalance between government spending and revenue. Selling residency rights to raise funds may at best be a short-term measure, but it cannot fundamentally change the U.S. fiscal situation.

What’s even more concerning is the social controversy this plan might trigger. If everything goes as planned, it could mean that more wealthy individuals will obtain U.S. residency by paying a high fee, while ordinary immigrants will still have to go through complicated procedures and may even be rejected due to various restrictions. This "buying residency" approach would shift the U.S. immigration system toward favoring the wealthy, raising questions about social fairness. Especially in the context of widening wealth gaps in the U.S., such a policy would undoubtedly exacerbate class divisions and lead ordinary citizens to question the fairness of the U.S. immigration system.

Furthermore, the feasibility of this policy is highly uncertain. Whether the $5 million "Gold Card" price will attract enough investors depends entirely on the future direction of the U.S. economy and the stability of its immigration policies. If the economic environment worsens or the political situation becomes unstable, investors might question the viability of the program, which could affect the inflow of funds. On the other hand, if the policy lacks sufficient transparency and regulation, it could end up in a situation where the flow of funds is unclear, even leading to financial risks, ultimately causing both social and economic instability.

In the long term, a country’s economic growth and stability rely primarily on factors such as industrial structure optimization, technological innovation, and a dynamic labor market, rather than simply depending on the sale of residency rights to raise funds. If the U.S. government becomes too reliant on this "short-term revenue" approach while neglecting true economic reforms and development, it could harm the nation’s long-term competitiveness. While this plan might bring short-term financial benefits to the U.S. government, its long-term economic and social impacts remain highly uncertain. Whether the government can strike a balance between attracting wealthy investors and maintaining social fairness is something we must continue to monitor. After all, a nation's prosperity cannot solely be built on the sale of identity; it must rely on sound economic policies, effective governance, and a fair and reasonable social system.