Saamia Aziz
Volume 77, Issue 4, 981-1004
The United States offers immigration pathways based on economic contribution, yet this principle is applied inconsistently across employment-based (EB) visa preference categories. While the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 visas require immigrants to demonstrate exceptional ability, advanced education, or labor market necessity, the EB-5 investor visa grants permanent residency solely in exchange for capital. This Note argues that this inconsistency exposes a deeper flaw in U.S. immigration law: an incoherent and unequal definition of “economic value.” By treating capital
as a sufficient basis for citizenship—without requiring skill, integration, or verifiable public benefit—the EB-5 program reveals how U.S. immigration policy privileges wealth over talent, labor, or civic contribution.
Through a critical analysis of the EB-5 program’s structure, a comparative study of employment-based and international investor visa systems, and a case study of the Jay Peak fraud scandal, this Note demonstrates that the United States has failed to articulate a coherent theory of economic value in migration policy. It concludes by proposing a redefinition of “economic contribution” that prioritizes measurable public benefit, direct skill transfer, and genuine developmental impact over mere financial transactions.