In the past two years, U.S. investment immigration has been vigorously promoted in our country, but two completely different voices have been increasingly heard: one claims that U.S. investment immigration is an angel, while the other asserts it is a devil.
Senior immigration experts at WorldWay believe that the U.S. investment immigration program is neither an angel nor a devil; it is merely an investment immigration program. Only by thoroughly understanding the project can one view its risks with a calm mindset.
Since the end of 2009, various regional entry and exit associations across the country have organized major industry players to specifically discuss the risks associated with the U.S. investment immigration program.
At the seminar, in order to protect the interests of U.S. investment immigration clients and reduce the investment risks for both companies and clients, many companies proposed their suggestions. For example, some companies suggested that an expert committee should be established to assess the risks of the U.S. investment immigration program and categorize those risks; others proposed that U.S. investment immigration services should only be responsible for obtaining the I-526 visa, and that they would not be responsible for the subsequent two years of conditions removal to obtain the I-829 visa or for the safety of the principal; some companies even suggested that the association should contact large overseas insurance companies to insure the safety of the principal in U.S. investment immigration, etc.
In fact, these so-called solutions are inappropriate, and some are even extremely ridiculous and absurd.
Some companies suggested: asking the association or government to categorize the risks of the U.S. investment immigration program. We must ask, if the safest project approved by the association encounters problems, will the association be responsible? Should the stock exchange guarantee that investors' investments are risk-free? Which insurance company is willing to guarantee that a person's business will not incur losses?
In fact, investment immigration is quite similar; if the government requires every investment project or fund to be reported and guaranteed as risk-free, investment clients will mistakenly believe that immigration programs approved by the government are all safe. If problems arise (for various reasons), they will blame the government rather than acknowledge their own insufficient understanding of the fund and immigration policies, which leads to incorrect choices and investment risks.
The risks of immigration investment are not only whether the investment amount can be recovered after five years, but also the need to consider the risk of removing the green card conditions after two years. The United States, in fact, provides great protection for many matters (including immigration) as long as operations are conducted according to laws and valid legal contracts. There are many measures that can be implemented to protect the rights and interests of U.S. investment immigration clients:
1. All investment programs registered in the United States are actually very rigorous and clearly stated, but these explanatory documents, when translated into Chinese, often simplify complex issues (omitting problematic parts). Therefore, even if issues arise in the future, investors will still suffer losses based on the original text. Thus, any fund and investment program must include the original English text in addition to the Chinese translation, so that unscrupulous funds will not dare to act recklessly, thereby protecting investors.
2. Investment funds and repayment funds must be clearly separated. Investments have profits but also risks (there are no guarantees for repayment). Clients who hope for returns on their investments can choose this type of fund, which has the potential for profit but also requires them to bear investment risks.
If clients do not wish to profit and only want to ensure the safety of their funds, they can choose a lending method with collateral to protect the principal (even if the collateral is insufficient for any reason after five years, they will not lose everything). The two methods must be clearly separated and not confused, and clients should be aware that they must bear the risks themselves (which is similar to investing in stocks). This will encourage investors to seek a deeper understanding of the funds and policies, thus reducing their risks.
3. There must be a regulatory mechanism for bank accounts, as investment immigration is conditional on investment behavior. This means that if immigration is unsuccessful, there is no reason to invest, and the investment funds should be returned as soon as possible. Therefore, it is essential to rely on regulatory banks to protect investment funds according to banking laws, preventing situations where investment funds cannot be recovered due to unsuccessful immigration.
4. Since U.S. investment immigration has employment requirements (which is also the main factor for removing green card conditions after two years), there are no exceptions or special approvals to bypass the employment requirements. Therefore, fund companies must first calculate clearly (and specify how many people can be employed and in what manner), especially regarding investment programs.
Given that investment programs have a certain investment amount requirement, if the required amount cannot be raised, the case cannot be established, which also determines the number of employees (for example, if an investment program requires US$10 million, it needs 20 investment clients, and according to the law, it must create 200 new jobs). If this requirement is not met after two years, there will be problems.
However, the lending model is much better. Similarly, if the lending case requires US$10 million, but the actuarial result shows that only 100 people can be employed, the fund can decide to lend only US$5 million (not US$5 million for the borrowing company to figure out on its own), thus satisfying the employment issue for investment clients, and the green card conditions can be smoothly removed after two years.
5. The operating company has the responsibility and obligation to inform applicants about the nature of the project they are applying for, whether it is investment-based or loan-based. Immigration service companies must inform applicants of their rights and obligations, as well as the risks they may encounter. All of this must be communicated truthfully, and the operating institution itself must thoroughly understand the relevant knowledge and must not deliberately conceal information or mislead consumers!
