Author: Niu Ltd

  • Trump Plan to Offer Citizenship to 1.8m Undocumented Immigrants

    The White House has outlined an immigration plan for nearly two million people to become US citizens in exchange for funding for a controversial border wall with Mexico.

    The framework was suggested by a senior Trump aide, ahead of legislative negotiations with Democrats.

    The proposed bill, to be unveiled on Monday, requests $25bn (£17.6bn) in funds for a wall on the Mexican border.

    The Democrats, who oppose funding for the wall, have criticised the plan.

    What is the plan?

    The details emerged in a conference call on Thursday between White House policy chief Stephen Miller and Republican congressional aides, according to US media.

    Mr Miller reportedly described the White House plan as a “dramatic concession”.

    The blueprint sets out a 10-12-year path to citizenship for 1.8 million people.

    This includes some 700,000 so-called Dreamers, immigrants who illegally entered the US as children and were protected from deportation under an Obama-era programme, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca).

    The other 1.1 million would be immigrants who did not apply for Daca but are eligible for the scheme.

    The White House framework also seeks to end two other initiatives often criticised by President Donald Trump.

    It proposes to curtail so-called chain migration, permitting US residents only to get visas for their spouse and children, not for extended family members.

    The White House also wants to scrap the diversity visa lottery, under which 50,000 people from around the world every year win Green Cards at random.

    What’s the reaction?

    Republican US Senator Tom Cotton, one of the most conservative voices on immigration policy, welcomed Mr Trump’s plan.

    “The president’s framework is generous and humane, while also being responsible,” the Arkansas senator said in a statement.

    Democrats were less impressed. “Dreamers should not be held hostage to President Trump’s crusade to tear families apart and waste billions of American tax dollars on an ineffective wall,” Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin said in a statement.

    New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez was among those tweeting their frustration.

    United We Dream, a young immigrants’ organisation, called the White House plan “a white supremacist ransom note”.

    Why is Daca important?

    Mr Trump cancelled the programme in September and gave Congress a March deadline to come up with a new plan.

    The president has so far rejected bipartisan proposals that have been presented to him.

    Congress’ failure to secure a deal on immigration triggered a brief shutdown of the federal government over the weekend.

    On Wednesday, Mr Trump said he was optimistic that a deal on immigration would be reached that included keeping the so-called Dreamers in the country.

    He added that it was an “incentive” for so-called Dreamers to work hard and “do a great job”.

    The Republican president has made it clear that in exchange for making a concession to help accomplish a Democratic priority, he wants the party’s backing for his signature campaign promise to deliver a border wall.

    However, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer this week withdrew an offer of funding for Mr Trump’s proposed border barrier.

    The other ‘Dreamers’ facing uncertain future

    Clock is ticking

    Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

    There’s a quote from Mark Twain that if you don’t like the weather in New England, just wait five minutes. The same could be said of Donald Trump’s position on immigration.

    One day he’ll accept – and take the heat for – any bipartisan deal Congress might strike. Later, he insists any agreement must include funding for his border wall and sweeping changes to legal immigration.

    During the shutdown, he painted Democratic efforts to get a Daca vote as support for “unchecked illegal immigration”. On Wednesday, he expressed an openness to giving Daca recipients a path to citizenship – something many of his supporters deride as amnesty for lawbreakers.

    This could be part of some grand “art of the deal” presidential strategy, which will only be revealed in hindsight. Or perhaps congressional parties should focus on people like chief of staff John Kelly, who stayed in Washington to negotiate while the president hob-nobs with the global elite in Davos.

    Either way, the clock is ticking toward another budget showdown. If the immigration impasse is to be surmounted, a solution needs to emerge quickly.

     

    Source: bbc.com

  • More Than 20% of Our Applicants Are Chinese Says Head of Thai Residence Program

    Thai Elite Residence, one of the world’s newest residence by investment programs, is a departure from orthodoxy in the investment migration market. While the practice of accepting cash donations in exchange for passports is well established among citizenship by investment programs, Thailand is the first to introduce a contribution option for long-term visas.

    For the price of 2 million Thai Baht (approximately US$ 60,000), foreign nationals are afforded the right to live in Thailand for 20 years, as well as  a slew of complementary government concierge services.

    Investment Migration Insider sat down with the head of the program, Pruet Boobphakam, during the 2017 International Migration Summit in Guangzhou in November,

    China makes up more than a fifth of applicants to the program so far, Mr. Boobphakam says, adding that the runners-up are, in order of magnitude, British, American, French, and Japanese nationals. “But I would say that nearly all countries are represented,” he adds. “We even get applications from Saint Kitts & Nevis and Vanuatu”.

    While Thailand has long been considered a top-notch lifestyle destination, recent years have seen a surge in political tension, leading investors to treat the market with more caution. While he acknowledges the disruptive effects of the social unrest, Pruet points out that every Thai government for the last several generations, whether civilian or military, has been united in their welcoming of foreign tourists and investors as an integral part of the country’s economic fabric.

    “In Thailand, it doesn’t matter if the government color is red, yellow or green. While we may argue among ourselves, foreign tourists and investors will always be accommodated,” assures Pruet.

    Commenting on why Thailand chose not to include a real estate investment option, a staple of golden visa schemes elsewhere in the world, Pruet said it had to do with a reluctance to sell any type of land to foreigners, borne out of the Kingdom’s history of being forced to cede control of large areas to its neighbors during the imperial years.

    “I think we learned from our history. During our time as an empire, our country was much larger than it is today. But then we came under pressure from the so-called superpowers, which put us in a situation where we lost much of our land. For example, parts of what is today Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia used to be part of Thailand. So, as Thais, we do not feel comfortable losing any more land, and that’s why we generally don’t offer freehold property to foreigners” Pruet explains, but is quick to add that non-Thais can purchase usufruct leases of 40-years, as well as freehold property in developments that are 51% Thai owned.

    Thai Elite earlier this year granted Henley & Partners the global marketing concession for the program, a decision Pruet says he is very happy with. “We are working so well together,” he says with a smile, and points out that, while Henley & Partners is the global concessionaire, agents from around the world are still welcome to work with Thai Elite directly.

    Processing times, Pruet informs us, is about 2-3 weeks, both in terms of client due diligence and on-boarding new agent partnerships. “We work fast because we believe that every country in the world is our competitor,” says Pruet.

    Who does he think is the Thai program’s biggest competitors? “The Caribbean”, says Pruet after a moment’s consideration, “because even though they are selling citizenships and not residency, prices are low enough to compete.”

    What if I wanted to become a citizen of Thailand, I ask Mr. Boobphakam. “Easy” he quips. “Just marry a Thai girl.”

     

    Source: imidaily.com

  • Trudeau: Canada Would Reinstate Antigua’s Visa-Free Access if CIP “Significantly Improves”

    Speaking at a town hall meeting in Toronto this week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the audience that his government would consider lifting visa requirements for citizens of Antigua and Barbuda, subject to “significant improvements” to the country’s Citizenship by Investment Programme, according to a story in Antigua News Room.

    “We will always ensure Canadians stay protected and if countries like Antigua and Barbuda make the significant improvements and changes necessary to their programmes then we could then look at lifting the visa requirement,” Trudeau explained, adding “what we found in Antigua and Barbuda and other countries is there wasn’t the level of stringency and analysis done to satisfy our high standards on immigration and border control to allow us to continue to have visa-free access for citizens of Antigua and Barbuda.”

    The statement came in response to questions as to how bilateral relations between Canada and the Caribbean state could “be repaired”, and whether such a reconciliation would necessitate a termination of Antigua’s CIP.

    The Canadian prime minister did not specify which kinds of changes would need to take place for his government to reconsider Antigua & Barbuda’s visa-status

    In June last year, Antigua & Barbuda became the latest Caribbean CIP-country to see Canada impose visa requirements on its citizens, ending the competitive advantage Antigua & Barbuda’s program had held among the region’s economic citizenship programs since Saint Kitts & Nevis lost its visa-free access to Canda three years prior.

    At the time, Canadian authorities announced that Antigua & Barbuda no longer met “Canada’s criteria for a visa exemption,” without further elaborating on their motives for imposing the visa requirement.

    Trudeau’s comments this week mark the first time that Canada has explicitly admitted Antigua’s CIP was the deciding factor behind the policy change. Prime Minister Gaston Browne confirmed at the time that his country’s program was, in fact, the primary cause for Canada’s decision. During the town hall meeting, Trudeau also confirmed he had discussed the matter with Prime Minister Browne.

     

    Source: imidaily.com

  • Opening of IMC Office in the Caribbean

    The Investment Migration Council (IMC), the worldwide association chris willis 2for Investor Migration and Citizenship-by-Investment, head quartered in Geneva, will be opening an office in the Caribbean represented by Latitude Consultancy Limited.

    This ‘touch point’ serves to spread the reach of the IMC and its work throughout one of the most important regions for the industry. The office will have its own committee, contribute to elevating standards regionally and is also expected to organize several briefings, provide cross network opportunities, act as an information station for governments, the public and media as well as a go-to centre for our growing regional base of members. The office is responsible for the following sovereign states and dependent territories: Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

    Bruno L’ecuyer, IMC CEO, commented: ‘Through this strategic agreement with Latitude Consultancy, the opening of a representative office in the region will help cement our presence as the only legitimate and independent body representing the Citizenship and Residency by Investment industry in the world’.

    L’ecuyer adds ‘Offering a comprehensive suite of services and our members a main contact point, this office adds further value and will help on improving public understanding and transparency of investor migration and citizenship programs. We are delighted and honoured by this development’.

    Christopher Willis, Managing Director, Americas & Caribbean, Latitude Consultancy will be responsible for the daily operations at this regional office.  He is a member in good standing of the IMC, Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC) with over 20 years of experience in the industry.

    Eric Major, Founding Partner, Latitude Consultancy said ‘We are honoured to be representing the IMC in the Caribbean, the birthplace of the modern-day citizenship-by-investment industry. Our experience, knowledge and presence in the region will allow us to play an important role in raising the standards adopted by practitioners and government units in the region.’

    The regional office can be contacted on email: caribbean@investmentmigration.org

     

     

     

  • Italy Broadens its Borders to Foreign Investors

     

    Competitiveness and attractiveness of Italian industry leads revamped economic growth of our Country.  Going on with its path aimed at attracting international flows of human and financial capital, Italy broadens its borders to foreign investors.

     

    After the launch on June, 24th 2014 of the Italia Startup Visa (ISV) program, which facilitates the visa issue procedure for highly qualified non-EU entrepreneurs who intend to build up an innovative start-up in Italy, new measures have been introduced proving the purpose of making Italy increasingly attractive.

     

    With this goal the Italian Government introduced the so-called “Investor Visa” program and the National Plan “Industria 4.0” which set aside more than EUR 20 billion to encourage investments in research and development, intangible assets, innovative machinery and equipment.

     

    The experience of the Italia Startup Visa program has been extremely positive. Up to 1 December 2017, ISV has recorded 310 applications, 149 of which during 2017. Of these, 173 (55,8%) have received a positive evaluation from the Italia Startup Visa & Hub Technical Committee, resulting in a Certificate of No Impediment to the visa. Among the others, 123 applications (39,7%) were unsuccessful and 14 are still under evaluation. The average age of candidates, coming from 39 different countries, is 36 years and almost 90% of them have a degree.

     

    Within this encouraging framework, Budget Law 2017 introduced a new program known as the “Investor Visa for Italy” which facilitates the visa issue procedure for nationals of non-EU member states or Schengen area countries who intend to make an investment or a donation in Italy.

     

    The visa is only issued in certain circumstances, defined, for various reasons, as in the collective interest: EUR 2,000,000 investment in government bonds, an equity loan of at least EUR 1,000,000 to an Italian limited company, or EUR 500,000 in case of investment in innovative start-ups or a philanthropic donation of at least EUR 1,000,000 in key areas for the present and future of Italy (e.g. culture, research, protection of the environment, management of migratory flows).

     

    The enactment of the program saw the light on 21 July 2017 with a specific decree followed by a “policy guidance” which set out the executive issues of the procedure.

     

    Thanks to this document the Investor Visa is now a reality – reality built on three key words: centralization, digitalization and rapidity.

     

     

    Author: Stefano Firpo, Director General for Industrial Policy Ministry of Economic Development, Italy

  • Between the Local and the Global: Plural Citizenship in Australia[1]

     

    Since Section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act has been repealed on 4 April 2002, Australians no longer lose their citizenship when acquiring the citizenship of another country.[2] The 116-year-old Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, however, still forbids anyone holding plural (dual or multiple) citizenship from running for Parliament.[3] In the wake of Australia’s still ongoing “dual citizenship crisis”,[4] the High Court of Australia in its late 2017 black letter decision of Re Canavan, unanimously held that five parliamentary candidates were deemed ‘a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power’ at time of nomination for the 2016 federal election.[5] Each was then disqualified from being a senator or member of the House of Representatives by reason of Section 44(i).[6]

     

    Citizenship’s legitimacy today is still seen as largely depending on political participation.[7] Citizenship itself, however, does not necessarily provide a guarantee of the proper and loyal fulfilment of sovereign functions.[8] Plural citizenship, on the other hand, may facilitate the naturalization and political assimilation of immigrants.[9] Australia’s latest census data shows that 49% of Australians were born overseas or have an overseas parent.[10] In times of globalization, Re Canavan then appears as an anachronism, situated alongside the 1953 International Court of Justice’s Nottebohm decision, requiring a ‘genuine connection’.[11] While direct political participation is perhaps one of the very last things new citizens may have in mind, preserving at least the future potential for participation in the polity of choice is of relevance to both singular and plural citizens in the evolution of citizenship.[12]

     

    The list of past Australian Prime Ministers who would today be in trouble with the current government’s take on dual citizenship is long.  Alfred Deakin, whose parents were born in the UK, even held office three times.[13]

     

    Author: Michael B. Krakat, IMCM, Solicitor Supreme Court of Queensland & High Court of Australia, Australian Postgraduate Award Research Scholar, Bond University

     

     

     

    [1] All online sources have been (re-)accessed on 02.01.2018.

    [2] Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment Act 2002 (Cth), amending the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth). Since 1 July 2007, the 1948 Act has been replaced by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

    [3] Section 44(i) sets out the prohibition to be elected to parliament for those holding dual or multiple citizenship, while section 44(ii) deals with anyone with a criminal conviction carrying a jail term of one year or more. Section 44(iii) bans people declared bankrupt or insolvent from holding office, whereas section 44(v) prohibits politicians from directly or indirectly benefitting financially from their role.

    [4] For further reading, see Mark Kenny, ‘Citizenship crisis threatens legitimacy of the Australian political system’, 2 November , 2017, The Sydney Morning Herald, https://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/citizenship-crisis-threatens-legitimacy-of-the-australian-political-system-20171101-gzch53.html; Trevor Marshallsea, ‘How a dual citizenship crisis befell an immigrant nation’, 14 August 2017, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40773930; Gabrielle Appleby, ‘The High Court sticks to the letter of the law on the citizenship seven’, 27 October, 2017, 6:24pm AEDT, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/the-high-court-sticks-to-the-letter-of-the-law-on-the-citizenship-seven-85324.

    [5] Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon [2017] HCA 45, judgment made 27 October 2017, https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2017/hca-45-2017-10-27.pdf; This decision confirmed the majority’s decision in Sykes v Cleary (1992) 176 CLR 77.

    [6] A person may not be so disqualified where that person took reasonable steps to renounce their foreign nationality. Knowledge or actual allegiance as a state of mind is not necessary. The mere potential to foreign citizenship does not trigger section 44(i).

    [7] See for instance in Engin F. Isin & Greg M. Nielsen (eds.) Acts of Citizenship (Zed Books, 2008).

    [8] See Christian H. Kalin, Ius Doni: The Acquisition of Citizenship by Investment, (Ideos, 2016), at 92.

    [9] Greg Brown, ‘Political Bigamy? Dual Citizenship in Australia’s Migrant Communities’ (2002) 10 (1) People and Place, 71.

    [10] See Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Census reveals a fast changing, culturally diverse nation’, Media release 27 June 2017, https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/Media%20Release3.

    [11] Nottebohm Case (Liech. v. Guat.) 1953 ICJ 111 (Nov. 18). Today’s meaning of a “genuine connection” may differ from that of 1953.

    [12] This reasoning is no different for citizens by investment and the direct acquisition of citizenship.

    [13] At least 11 former PM’s were born overseas (most of them were British subjects at the time) or had dual citizenship through their parents or other means. The list includes names such as Edmund Barton, Alfred Deakin, George Reid or John Curtin. The crisis is ongoing, and the next persons caught in the dual citizenship mess include names such as Tony Abbott; see: Jessica Haynes and Peter Marsh, ‘Dual Citizenship: Would any former prime ministers be caught up today?’ 4 November 2017, 7:13 PM, ABC news,  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-04/some-former-pms-could-have-been-caught-up-in-citizenship-mess/9115988

     

     

  • Will the U.S. Residency by Investment EB-5 Program be Competitive Globally in 2018?

     

    I am positive the Direct EB-5 and Regional Center EB-5 program will continue even though the program is in a state of flux and the predictability of the date of proposed changes is uncertain. There are hundreds of EB-5 Regional Center projects that have started and continue to receive EB-5 investors so that the investors may achieve their U.S. permanent residency for the minimum investment amount of USD 500,000.

     

    In 2017 we saw proposed changes either by legislation or by USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service) new regulations that could take effect in 2018. There is still no certainty as to the date when they would occur in 2018. The most current proposed legislation refers to an increase in the minimum investment amount in a Target Employment Area (TEA) or Rural Area from USD 500,000 to USD 925,000. If the project is not in a TEA or Rural Area, then the investment amount will be USD 1,025,000. In addition, the USCIS has the authority to propose and initiate new EB-5 regulations. The new EB-5 regulations states that the minimum investment amount (in a TEA or Rural Area) will be an estimated USD 1.4 million and if the project is not in a TEA or Rural Area then the amount will be an estimated USD 1.8 million.

     

    The EB-5 industry as a whole prefers the proposed new legislation over the new USCIS regulations. That is, the increase from USD 500,000 to USD 925,000 is a smaller increase than to USD 1,400,000. Also, the difference between the minimum investment and the non-TEA amount is only USD 100,000. It is preferable that the new legislation take effect soon as it would take precedent over any new USCIS regulations initiated. That is, if the USCIS regulations are initiated in early 2018 and one month later there is new legislation, then the new legislation minimum investment amount would take control. President Trump also has the authority to stop any new regulations from taking effect, but to date this has not happened. The consensus of the EB-5 industry is that even though there may be changes to the EB-5 program, they would be accepted if there is a legislation authorizing the EB-5 program for a longer period and this would lead to immediate predictability for the U.S. developer and foreign national investor.

     

    Author: Edward Beshara, Managing Partner, Beshara Global Migration Law Firm, USA

  • The Way Forward for Grenada’s Citizenship Programme in 2018

     

    Grenada’s Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in presenting the country’s 2018 Budget, noted that Grenada’s Citizenship-by-Investment (CBI) Programme has exceeded all expectations in 2017 and is now regarded as one of the highest-rated CBI programmes in the world. An impressive performance is projected for 2018 not only because of increasing recognition of Grenada’s CBI programme, but because of changes in policy and amendments to the principal legislation.

     

    New Marketing Commission Structure for Section 10 Applications

    A change in government’s policy is targeted to marketing agents in order to stimulate promotion of the destination and to encourage investment in the Section 10 option whereby the applicant chooses to invest in Grenada by making a contribution to the National Transformation fund.

    This new policy allows top performing marketing agents to earn an incremental marketing agent commission as follows:

     

    1. Once an agent achieves 60 approved Section 10 National Transformation Fund (NTF) applications within a 12-month period, this agent will receive an additional commission of USD 10,000 per approved Section 10 NTF application, the difference being paid at the point of achievement of the target.
    2. Once an agent achieves 100 approved Section 10 NTF applications within a 12-month period (January to December of any year), this agent will receive a further USD 10,000, the difference being paid at the point of achievement of the target.

     

    This incentive applies to applications submitted and approved under Section 10 (National Transformation Fund) ONLY.

     

    Increase in Age of Dependent Children

    In November 2017, Government amended the legislation to increase the age of dependent children from 26 years to 30 years. The definition of dependent child now includes a child up to the age of 30 and who is otherwise dependent on the main applicant or his or spouse.

     

    Child born within 12 months of application may granted citizenship

    A child born to the main applicant within 12 months of filing the original application with CBI may be included in the application if the main applicant makes application within six months of the birth of the child and pays the applicable fee.

     

    Age of dependent parent or grandparent decreased from 65 years to 55 years

    Parents or grandparents of the main applicant or his or her spouse are now considered from above age 55 years living with and fully supported by the main applicant.

     

    Differentiation of individual applicants from family applicants under Section 10 and lowering the required contribution of such Individuals

    Individual applicants — only under Section 10 (contribution to the National Transformation Fund) — would now make a reduced contribution of USD 150,000.00. All other charges and fees remain unchanged.

     

     

    Author: Marion Suite, Local Agent for Grenada Citizenship by Investment, Grenada

  • Robust Investment Immigration Due Diligence in China

     

    In the US alone, Chinese immigrant investors constitute almost 85% of all EB-5 allocations[1]. By the end of August 2017, 3,339 overseas Chinese fugitives were captured from more than 90 countries, recovering around USD 1.41 billion, with 628 of these being former officials[2]. As such, it is imperative to conduct robust investment immigration due diligence on potential Chinese immigrant investors to verify their integrity and assure their wealth was not attained through criminal means, protecting the receiving government from unintentional money laundering.

     

    How influential is the individual, what is their track record and how have they attained their wealth?

     

    A typical public-level review of due diligence on a Chinese individual may involve the following sources, verifications and processes:

     

    • Business Interests and Source of Wealth Verification
    • Company Records
    • Databases (Media, Industry, Blacklists)
    • Media & Internet Searches
    • ID Verifications
    • Regulatory Information
    • Civil Litigation
    • Shareholder Information
    • Employment, License and Professional Verifications
    • Reference Checks
    • Site Visits
    • Cross-Referencing of Information Sources

     

    Given the intricate ties between Chinese business, government and influential individuals, an individual’s corporate and governmental connections must be researched. Public records from government databases, such as those available at local AICs (Administration for Industry and Commerce), form the foundation of due diligence reports when coupled with media and internet searches. Civil litigation records are also crucial data points should an individual have previously served as a defendant or plaintiff.

     

    China-specific databases like Wisers, which covers media and industry, often provide higher quality information than global databases. It is similarly important to search Chinese government blacklists that document individuals and companies associated with corruption. However, these should still be supplemented with global sources such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch to understand risk holistically. Local information searches must be conducted in Chinese by trained professionals fluent in the language. For example, locating a specific individual when there may be thousands of others with the same Chinese name is extremely difficult for non-fluent speakers[3].

     

    Once all information has been gathered, cross-referencing reports and various sources can bring insight into the individual should any discrepancies arise between the sources.

     

    With recent Chinese data privacy reforms, what is publicly available and what can be legally accessed for research must be distinguished. For example, financial information about an official from tax authorities may be available, but it is often illegal to access that information for due diligence.

     

    Author: Michael Cheng, General Manager Due Diligence Operations, Blue Umbrella, China

     

    [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/07/immigrant-investor-program-eb-5-trump-xi-jinping-meeting

    [2] https://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/10/c_136669691.htm

    [3] https://www.theworldofchinese.com/2014/07/the-most-popular-names-in-china-not-a-john-smith-in-sight/

     

     

  • Migration To an Emerging Economy: The Case of Chile

     

    The Chilean economy has undergone a rapid transition from an economy with a per capita income of around 7,000 dollars in the early 1990s to a country with an income per head of near 25,000 dollars in 2017. This has followed two to three decades of rapid economic growth and internal transformation. Now the country is a member nation of the OECD and has the highest level of income per person in the Latin American region. Macroeconomic indicators show fiscal sustainability, low inflation, modest levels of foreign public debt, respectable levels of domestic savings and realistic exchange rates. Chile’s main resource base is in mining (copper, lithium, iron ore, and other products), agro-industry, forestry and fish-based products. In addition, the country is relying more on clean energy and is changing its energy matrix away from coal and other traditional energy sources. On the social side, poverty has declined but inequality of income and wealth is considerable and social gaps remain in access to education, health and social security.

     

    In the last 10–15 years, the country has received a large and increasing inflow of migrants. The number of foreign migrants has increased from near 200,000 in the late 1990s to about 500,000 today. Main source countries include Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Haiti, Ecuador, Venezuela, Spain, the United States and other nations. Migrants are attracted by existing job opportunities that are filled quickly, and also by broader development possibilities that offer an advantage relative to source countries that have gone through internal economic crises in recent years. The current Chilean migration law, established in 1975, is under revision in parliament to put it in line with the new realities of the 21st century and the changes undergone in the labor market and the economy more generally. Issues of migrant protection, contracting requirements, diversity of skills, and variety of visa are at the forefront of the new migration law under discussion. International investors face no impediments to reside and do business in Chile, although more needs to be done to attract advanced human capital in the migration regime.

     

    In summary, in spite of its relatively remote location relative to center economies in North America and Europe, Chile has become an increasingly interesting location for people from all over the world. Tourism is reaching record numbers and migration flows have more than doubled in less than two decades. The main challenge is establishing how to maintain growth and job creation, while diversifying the production and energy base of the country. Social challenges exist in the direction of reducing inequalities and making social services more accessible to all. A new migration law will help to provide a more modern legal framework for the international mobility of people in a country that has been historically open and friendly with foreigners.

     

    Author: Prof. Andres Solimano, Founder and President of the International Center for Globalization and Development, Chile

Pin It on Pinterest

Skip to content