The reaction was swift when Donald Trump announced his proposal for the "Gold Card", a fast track to residency for billionaires who invest more than US$5 million in the United States. For some, it is a pragmatic strategy to attract foreign capital and strengthen the economy. For others, it is a consolidation of the dominance of those who have the most, the economic elites, over U.S. politics and society; in other words, it is another step towards plutocracy.

Trump's approach to immigration has been, since his first campaign, one of the pillars of his political discourse. While his previous administration imposed harsh restrictions on the migration of workers and refugees, this "Gold Card" proposal seems to open the doors only to those who have enough money to buy their way into the country.

This overconfidence in this kind of mechanism shows the mood of the President: someone convinced that only money can buy what is worthwhile. Perhaps this is the origin of his contempt for institutionality. But that is the subject of another discussion.

The Gold Card proposal reinforces an already existing trend: inequality in immigration opportunities. While thousands of asylum seekers wait years for an answer, and workers with technical skills struggle with complicated bureaucratic systems to obtain a visa, the ultra-rich would receive a preferential pass simply because of their investment capacity.

Proponents of the Gold Card argue that attracting billionaire investors can generate jobs and boost the U.S. economy. However, evidence from similar programs in other countries shows that the actual economic impact is often minimal. Countries such as Canada, Portugal, and Spain have implemented versions of "golden visas" that, in some cases, have resulted in speculative real estate investments with no tangible benefits to the population.

In the U.S., this could result in a greater concentration of wealth in real estate and financial sectors without necessarily benefiting the rest of the population. It also opens the door to the influence of foreign tycoons in U.S. politics and the U.S. economy, a recurring concern in debates about national security and economic sovereignty (remember "The Russian Plot").

Low interest

Despite Trump's efforts to sell the Gold Card as a mechanism to reduce the fiscal deficit, claiming that up to one million cards could be sold, raising US$5 billion, billionaires seem uninterested. According to Forbes research, of 18 billionaires surveyed worldwide, 13 said they were not interested in the proposal, three were undecided and only two would seriously consider it.

One Canadian billionaire quoted by Forbes noted, "If you're a billionaire, you don't need it." A European tycoon added, "Anyone who has a business idea can do it now for very little money, so why spend US$5 million?" This lack of interest from the ultra-rich suggests that the Gold Card may not be the financial success Trump imagines and that its actual economic impact may be marginal.

The real concern is that the idea that wealth confers disproportionate privileges is spreading as public policy. The Gold Card takes this dynamic to the extreme. In a democracy that is supposed to be based on equality of opportunity, preferential access to residency and eventually citizenship on purely economic grounds can be interpreted as a weakening of democratic principles and a frontal attack on universal human rights principles.

Historically, immigration policies have been a reflection of a society's values. With this proposal, Trump reaffirms a model in which political and economic power is concentrated in a privileged minority, further consolidating the influence of large fortunes in national decisions.

Another factor that could dampen the attractiveness of the Gold Card is taxes. The US tax system taxes its citizens on their global income, which is a disadvantage for many foreign billionaires. Trump has claimed that Gold Card recipients would not have to pay taxes on income generated outside the U.S., which would give them a higher tax exemption than U.S. citizens themselves. However, Forbes cautions that there are still no concrete details on whether this is possible without Congressional approval.

The "Gold Card" is not just an immigration policy; it is a statement of principle about who deserves to be part of America's future. While the doors are closing for many, they are opening wide for those who can afford the price of entry. Rather than a growth strategy, this measure seems designed to strengthen an elite within the U.S., moving the country one step closer to a plutocracy model in which money not only buys influence, but also citizenship. To citizenship by birth must now be added citizenship by enrichment.

However, the lack of interest from the majority of billionaires surveyed by Forbes suggests that this strategy may not be as effective as Trump hopes. If the economic elite do not find this program attractive, can it really be a viable solution for the U.S. economy? Or, rather, is it just another populist maneuver to bolster his image among his voter base?