Many countries offer wealthy investors the option of becoming a citizen by making a substantial investment in the country. In more developed countries like the U.S, they offer wealthy investors residency, after which they may apply for citizenship through the naturalization process. However in some countries like St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean), and Dominica, they offer automatic citizenship with no residency requirement for a total amount of at least $200 000. What do you guys think about this phenomenon of economic citizenship in the latter case? If you had the means, would you enter such a program by making an investment in a struggling country, for the reward of citizenship?
Hello everyone, im pleased to be debating. as for your question, no i would not make a contribution to a country in order to be rewarded with citizenship. i believe it is ethically wrong to reward a person based on money, because most people dont have the means to do these things, and must go through long naturilization procceses and even risk being denied citizenship. Thanks again for the debate
I'm sorry that my statement is so confusing. I mentioned two types of programs, those of the developed countries which require residency, and those of the small islands who do not require residency, but offer automatic citizenship on receipt of a specific sum as an investment.
The question I am asking is ' If you had the means, would you enter such a program by making an investment in a struggling country, for the reward of citizenship?"
Maybe I should rephrase the entire statement so that it is not so ambiguous. I will review it and state it so that it is debatable. Thanks for your input.
I want to debate on this but I am quite confused. What are you really trying to debate? Is it that you agree with economic citizenship? Or is it connected to these statements, "What do you guys think about this phenomenon of economic citizenship in the latter case? If you had the means, would you enter such a program by making an investment in a struggling country, for the reward of citizenship?"
In your first question, you were asking for the perception of your opponent, right? I'm just wondering, what if we have the same perception? Then there will be no arguments? Or wait, is that intended to be your argument? I'm confused, really.
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.
I'm sorry that my statement is so confusing. I mentioned two types of programs, those of the developed countries which require residency, and those of the small islands who do not require residency, but offer automatic citizenship on receipt of a specific sum as an investment.
The question I am asking is ' If you had the means, would you enter such a program by making an investment in a struggling country, for the reward of citizenship?"
Maybe I should rephrase the entire statement so that it is not so ambiguous. I will review it and state it so that it is debatable. Thanks for your input.
In your first question, you were asking for the perception of your opponent, right? I'm just wondering, what if we have the same perception? Then there will be no arguments? Or wait, is that intended to be your argument? I'm confused, really.