On October 13, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government announced that it would raise the investment immigration threshold from HKD 6.5 million to HKD 10 million, and remove real estate from the investment asset categories of the investment immigration program, effective from the 14th.
It is noteworthy that the Hong Kong SAR government is not alone in raising the investment immigration threshold.
Australia significantly revised its business immigration (i.e., investment immigration) rules on April 19 this year, abolishing the 163B category of business immigration and substantially increasing the capital requirements for other categories of business immigration, with the family net asset requirement rising from AUD 250,000 to AUD 500,000, an increase of 100%. The minimum shareholding requirement for operational business immigration has also risen dramatically from an annual turnover of AUD 400,000 and a capital ratio of 10% to 49%.
Singapore also recently amended its investment immigration regulations, with Plan A originally requiring an investment of at least SGD 1 million in a self-operated entity, now changed to SGD 2.5 million; Plan B originally required an investment of at least SGD 1.5 million in designated funds, now changed to SGD 2.5 million; and Plan C, which was a combination of investment funds and real estate, has been completely abolished. This means that, like Hong Kong, Singapore no longer encourages investment immigrants to purchase local real estate.
Another major investment immigration country, Canada, has taken even more drastic measures: on June 26 of this year, the Canadian federal immigration department announced a suspension of new investment immigration applications, awaiting the launch of new laws in October. According to the new law, federal investment immigrants must have assets of CAD 1.6 million and invest at least CAD 800,000 in Canada, which doubles the previous requirement of CAD 800,000 in assets and a minimum investment of CAD 400,000.
In addition to the federal level, many provinces in Canada also have their own investment immigration programs. The closure at the federal level has led many investment immigrants to flock to these provinces. On October 11, Quebec, which accepts the most provincial nomination investment immigrants, announced that it would suspend the acceptance of new cases starting from the 15th and is considering raising the existing investment threshold from CAD 400,000 to CAD 800,000, aligning with the federal investment immigration standards.
Many commentators have pointed out that the large-scale investment immigration enthusiasm among Chinese nationals has played a role in prompting various countries to raise their investment immigration thresholds.
In recent years, the number of Chinese nationals interested in investment immigration has indeed increased significantly, comprising a complex mix of current and former officials and their families (including "corrupt officials"), wealthy entrepreneurs, tycoons, and celebrities, as well as many ordinary people. Their motivations for choosing investment immigration are diverse: to escape misfortune, concerns about asset safety, seeking a welfare society for old-age support and medical care, or simply for their children's education and future considerations.
Among the countries that have raised their investment immigration thresholds, some are traditional immigration countries, such as Australia and Canada, where the proportions of skilled immigration, family reunification immigration, and study immigration are not small, and investment immigration is just one part of it; while other countries and regions, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, also have immigration programs based on attracting scarce talent, but the number of accepted immigrants each year is limited, making investment immigration the main body of immigration.
The initial intentions behind these countries raising their investment immigration thresholds are actually quite different. Australia is mainly concerned about the impact of too many immigrants on its society, Canada claims that there are too many immigration applications leading to severe backlogs, while Singapore and Hong Kong are worried about the impact of investment immigrants on the stability of their real estate and financial sectors. Therefore, the specific implementation details vary greatly: Canada is tightening policies for investment and skilled immigration while relaxing those for study immigration; Australia is tightening comprehensively; and Hong Kong and Singapore have temporarily not touched the limited talent introduction programs, but one thing is the same: significant price increases.
The reason for this is related to the fact that the previous thresholds have "failed to deter people": as real estate prices in mainland China have soared, the once high investment immigration thresholds have now become achievable simply by selling one's own house, which has naturally led to a surge in the number of investment immigrants. Moreover, with the increasing wealth gap in China and the fermentation of some social issues, both vested interests and "dispossessed interests" are eager to seek a safer environment and more reliable guarantees, making it particularly attractive to spend an affordable amount to "become a foreigner" for themselves and their families.
The price increases for investment immigration in various countries are not merely for financial gain. Many commentators have pointed out that compared to skilled immigrants, investment immigrants have a weaker sense of belonging to the host country and are less willing to actively integrate into the new society; due to their relatively affluent economic status, they are not as busy as traditional immigrants looking for jobs or education, and their children find it harder to integrate with local peers. In the eyes of many locals, these "wealthy foreigners" are perceived as having wealth that is their own, contributing less to the local community than ordinary skilled immigrants, especially since they have driven up the prices of local real estate and other "hardware".
It must be pointed out that no country or region has claimed that its investment immigration policy adjustments are aimed specifically at China (or any other specific country), but the new policies clearly have the greatest impact on the investment immigration group from mainland China.
From the current situation, the increase in thresholds is an inevitable trend and will continue to develop. Public opinion in various immigration-receiving countries generally supports raising immigration thresholds, and even most non-investment immigrants are no exception, as they perceive that the soaring housing prices brought by investment immigrants harm them the most, and these "wealthy individuals" live in a "different world" from the hardworking non-investment immigrants who strive to integrate into local society.
The increase in thresholds can block ordinary people who can "sell their house and immigrate" due to soaring housing prices, but it cannot stop the truly wealthy individuals. The enthusiasm for investment immigration shows no signs of diminishing, and in response to this new trend, countries seem to choose to continue raising thresholds: Canada, Singapore, and Australia, which raised thresholds earlier, generally have a transition period of several months from the announcement of new regulations to implementation, while in the latest cases, Hong Kong had only a 1-day gap between the announcement and implementation of new regulations, and Quebec theoretically had only 4 days, and due to a large number of investment immigrants attempting to rush in during these 4 days, Quebec announced a "closure" two days in advance.
If real estate prices in mainland China remain difficult to control, and different classes of "wealthy individuals" continue to consider safety, stability, and their children's future, the "rigid demand" for investment immigration is unlikely to be fundamentally suppressed. A vicious cycle of "price increase—accelerated applications—further price increase—further accelerated applications" between the "wealthy individuals" in China and various immigration destinations is not impossible.
