If you’re like me, your eyes glaze over a little bit when people start talking about the intricacies of our immigration policies and the various kinds of visas we offer to foreign nationals. I certainly feel that way about the EB-5 visa, although I felt compelled to look into it since it has embroiled Jared Kushner and his family in controversy and now Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is calling for an investigation.
The EB-5 visa was created in 1990 and put into its current form in 1993. The simplest way of understanding it is that it creates an avenue for foreigners to get permanent residence in the country (and possibly citizenship) if they’re willing to invest a million bucks in a business that will eventually employ at least ten people. There’s a provision for investing in economically needy areas that only requires that you invest half a million. The changes made in 1993 introduced some problems and changed the nature of the program.
In order to make the program more investor-friendly, Congress enacted the 1993 Appropriations Act which amended the EB-5 program to create the “Pilot Immigration Program” — the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (IIPP). Under the IIPP, foreign nationals could invest in a pre-approved regional center, or “economic unit [referred to as regional centers], public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment.” Investments within a regional center provide foreign nationals the added benefit of allowing them to count jobs created both directly and indirectly for purposes of meeting 10-job creation requirement. This was intended to help potential investors to meet “the program’s stringent requirements” through passive investment. With the IIPP, the EB-5 visa became an investors visa as opposed to an entrepreneur’s visa.
Basically, the IIPP made it possible to simply invest money without having any personal connection or role with any particular project. Since it allowed privately run “regional centers,” it introduced an incentive for private citizens to solicit funds from rich foreigners using eventual American citizenship as the dangle. It didn’t take long for the program to run into controversy, as these private entities started working the regulatory agency responsible for refereeing the application process.
In c.1995 former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials formed a company called AIS that acted as intermediaries between INS and immigrant entrepreneurs in the EB-5 program. Whereas EB-5 required an investment of 500,000 AIS only required $125,000 cash with the rest — $375,000 in the form of a promissory note. AIS claimed the promissory note would “be forgiven once the immigrant’s permanent residency application was approved”. The U.S. immigration agency, which was then known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), had interpreted the regulations regarding financial qualifications in a way that accepted this arrangement until c. 1998 when they were under investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). There were allegations that the INS was giving preferential treatment to AIS in EB-5 matters.
If you’re pitching a foreign millionaire on investing in your “regional center,” you’ll need to convince them that you can deliver on your end of the deal. And since your end isn’t some assurance that they’ll get a good financial return on their investment but that they’ll get the citizenship they desire, you’ll want to gain influence and control over the citizenship approval process.
This is where the Kushner family comes into it.
It’s not unusual for commercial real estate builders to utilize the EB-5 visa. Most major hotel chains have used the program to raise capital, in part because it is cheaper than borrowing from a bank. The Kushner family has a history with the EB-5, using it for example to finance a project in Journal Square in New Jersey. Just last March, Kushner Properties announced that they were abandoning a plan to use EB-5 financing to team up with a Chinese insurance company named Anbang and convert the Manhattan skyscraper at 666 Fifth Avenue into luxury residential units. Still, when President Trump signed his first major piece of legislation on May 5th, it included an extension of the Immigrant Investor Visa Program through September 30, 2017. Whatever else you might say about it, the program has benefitted the president since he has used it to finance some of his Trump-branded building projects.
Chuck Grassley has had problems with the EB-5 for a while now, describing it as a program that “has been rife with fraud and national security weaknesses.” In February, he teamed with Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) to introduce a bill that would terminate the EB-5.
What he wants to investigate at the moment is what he considers fraudulent representations made by a Chinese firm named Qiaowai that was marketing a Kushner Industries project in Jersey City to Chinese investors. That Grassley is concerned about this is understandable, but it appears to be missing the larger point. And that’s a point that is not lost on the president:
The most serious point of contention between the president and his son-in-law, two people familiar with the interactions said, was a video clip this month of Mr. Kushner’s sister Nicole Meyer pitching potential investors in Beijing on a Kushner Companies condominium project in Jersey City. At one point, Ms. Meyer — who remains close to Mr. Kushner — dangled the availability of EB-5 visas to the United States as an enticement for Chinese financiers willing to spend $500,000 or more.
For Mr. Trump, Ms. Meyer’s performance violated two major rules: Politically, it undercut his immigration crackdown, and in a personal sense, it smacked of profiteering off Mr. Trump — one of the sins that warrants expulsion from his orbit.
In the following days during routine West Wing meetings, the president made several snarky, disparaging comments about Mr. Kushner’s family and the visas that were clearly intended to express his annoyance, two aides said. Mr. Kushner did not respond, at least not in earshot.
In simple terms, the president is angry that the Kushner family is using his name to promise citizenship to prospective Chinese investors, while Chuck Grassley is angry that a Chinese company used those assurances to make the same claim. This looks like a way for Grassley to continue his war on the EB-5 visa while actually shifting the accountability for this case away from the Kushner family.
This is a clever way for Grassley to protect the White House while seeming to be a tough guy. But it’s fraudulent. There are legitimate moral and national security questions about the EB-5 visa, but the main problem has been that it invites people to commit corrupt acts. There could be no more corrupt act than having the president (or his staff) making private assurances to potential investors that they’ll get citizenship in return for their investments in private commercial investment vehicles.
The revelations made about Kushner and his shenanigans with Russian officials should make corrupt attempts by Grassley and his Republican colleagues impossible to sustain. Before I flipped my computer on this morning, I found myself thinking that this is all heading to a point where Democratic Party caucusmembers in Congress are going to start conducting various forms of interventions with Republican colleagues who they have relationships with, telling them they have a problem they must deal with.
Kushner wanted to avoid any American governmental awareness of a series of future conversations with Russian officials. Around the same time Kush met with the Russian Ambassador to attempt to set up this insanely hazardous communication system, he also met with a man who directs a bank which is essentially run by Putin and the Russian government. The U.S. has imposed sanctions which prevent Americans from doing business with this bank. Kushner’s real estate business is not doing well, and has a boatload of additional interest on their loans with Western banks which will be coming due very soon. It’s not clear Kushner’s company will be able to restructure their debt. Kushner’s sister and others with Kushner Co. are having problems getting investors in their projects. They need an infusion of cash very soon.
We have all of these data points now in the public record, and we’re supposed to believe the bullshit story by Kushner allies that he was trying to set up back channel talks about Syria? Why would you want to try to cut out the Defense, Homeland Security and Justice Departments if you were talking about Syria?
This is not going to end well, and Congressional Republicans need to get out of the way of a speeding train.
Who’s driving the train here?
Putin.
It is not about Syria. If it were I would expect the communication link would have been set up by someone like the CIA, FBI or NSA, as you suggest. Also wasn’t Flynn the one with Russian contacts and head of security? So it may have been all about the money and a way to secure some money outside the problem of sanctions. And the related story about Trump being upset about this whole affair is likely true. It could be Jared just went off the reservation.
I am still curious who sent the letter to WaPo that revealed this meeting in the first place and how did he know. I recall an earlier story about Flynn and an intercepted phone call. That may be the source of it.
You ask:
An easy answer:
You would want to cut out “…the Defense, Homeland Security and Justice Departments” if you were talking about anything, given the obvious enmity that has been shown by these organizations (plus the entire Intelligence system) towards the Trump forces for going on two years now…ever since it became obvious that he had a good chance of winning the Republican nomination.
I will reiterate whatIi have been saying here for a long, long while. This is a turf war between a very well and deeply established gang…call it “The DC Gang” if you do not like the Permanent Government and/or Deep State memes…and an upstart gang that has so far successfully defied any and all attacks from the established gang members on its move to power. I am not partial to either gang, myself, but it is certainly easily understandable why the upstarts would try to cut out their opposition’s information lines while they communicated with other gangs in other areas of the world that might be interested in seeing the DC gang cut down to size.
Duh.
Next question?
AG
P.S. I personally think that the Trump gang is way, way out of its league now, and the real minds involved in the competition…on all sides…are quite aware of that fact. The Trumps caught a perfect storm in the election and rode it all the way to the White House…perhaps with some amount of aid from other gangs like the Putin mob…but there appears to me to be no way that they can win against the now almost totally martialed forces of the bipartisan DC gang and its servant media.
No way on earth.
Putin must see this too, unless he has some other weapons that can be used against the DC gang. I am sure, given the depth of criminality in the DC establishment that there must be thousands more pieces of information that they do not want publicized in the Wikileaks fashion. So Putin is either:
1-Biding his time, happily watching the whole U.S. government apparatus wail and flail around as it uses almost all of its energies fighting Trump rather than taking care of its greater domestic and foreign problems
or
2-Biding his time until the whole U.S. governmental apparatus essentially blows itself up and he can forge a new alliance with the U.S. against Islamic terrorism…Trump or no Trump. After all…the extent of successful Islamic terrorist activities in the U.S and other NATO countries pales when compared with what has gone on in Russian territories over the past 20 years or so. Putin has a vested interest in totally defeating radical Islam. This is not “anti-Muslim,” it is simply “anti-enemy.” The Cold War fairly well proved that major nuclear powers are not about to risk mutual destruction, but asymmetrical war on the radical Islamic model is quite capable of completely destabilizing the balance of a powerful nation’s culture and sociopolitical system. Just look around you for plentiful evidence supporting that statement. Post 9/11? The U.S. culture has been totally changed.Everyone is now guilty until proven innocent.
Everyone.
Including you.
Bet on it.
This is some busy wanking. Note Arthur’s unwillingness to deal with the sketchiness of Kushner’s real estate dealings, and the extreme likelihood that money was a chief motivator for Kushner to make his dangerous and naïve request to secretly use Russian communication systems.
One new thing this wanking reveals is that Arthur is down with ultra-violent expressions of Islamophobia in service to Putin’s agenda as well.
Not surprising from a Ron Paul evangelist. But this attribute of Arthur’s hadn’t been made quite so clear until now.
Lastly, I ask everyone at the Frog Pond to consider Arthur’s use of the description “…their opposition…” in his strange essay here. Given the full context of what is being discussed, think about that description.
Then try to accept Arthur’s attempt to cover himself by claiming “…I am not partial to either gang…”. Arthur is supportive of Trump’s gang; he’s made that clear for over a year now, and he’s making it clear here that he is fine with Trump’s gang secretly collaborating with the Russian Federation. He even explicitly roots for Russia to defeat the United States to serve Putin’s ideological interests here.
What a guy.
Personally, I don’t think AG is far off here.
He may be glossing over the criminal implications and possibilities involved, but I think he’s got the basics pinned.
If you want to pursue a foreign policy that is basically a non-starter with the DC Establishment, including most of the elected officials (of any stature) in your own party, you probably don’t want to run things through official channels.
For Trump to make good on their promises and debts to Putin, they needed a way to communicate that wouldn’t be monitored by their own government. Unfortunately for them, they thought the Russians could keep a secret.
Arthur is not only glossing over some important subjects. He’s also trying, and failing, to deny his rooting interests. He wants Trump to win this fight.
I’d also ask for you to give a second reading of his description of Putin’s actions in response to Islamic separatists in his sphere. Arthur signs off 100% on everything Putin is doing there. To say that this is an extension of Arthur’s domestic opposition to civil rights is putting it mildly.
And then AG seals it by openly rooting for the Russians to help the Trump movement transform our policies. I’m not willing to meet such rhetoric with a sanguine response. This attitude is dangerously naive in the extreme.
. . . (and tiresome) dreck thoroughly enough to offer these detailed critiques.
My wonderment at that (at this late date) may be captured by a single word: Why?!?!
Not saying everything is on the up and up at all, but one main area of possible cooperation with Russia is in finding areas of common ground on Islamist terrorism. Could that be mainly a cover for removing sanctions? Absolutely.
But it’s also not an inherently unreasonable area to explore. Naive, probably, at least the way Trump has gone about it, but not necessarily so.
Yeah, I’d agree with this premise, as far as it goes.
Unfortunately, we have two primary actors and a bunch of supplementary actors in this international scenario, none of whom can be trusted to defend pluralism and a broad middle class.
And then we have the AG’s of the world, who anxiously pretend that one revolution is as good as another to them, but are actually harboring anti-progressive and authoritarian desires of their own.
It’s all about the authoritarianism.
“The President of France is talking about standing firm with predatory autocrats. And one of them is the President of the United States.”
. . . but shouldn’t that read “standing firm [against] predatory autocrats”?
If that’s what was intended, rather than the opposite as stated, very confusing on first read.
Well, this here is a case of enemy of my enemy being a friend.
There are those who think the US and primarily its foreign policy and governing institutions are so redeemable that it needs to be defeated. This leads some to sympathize with and defend the interests of those who seek to undermine the US.
Arthur has been consistent with his fixation on the perma-gov. He does not believe in the current system and wants it replaced.
He is not a Trump fan. However, I think he welcomes the chaos of the Trump presidency because it will be permanently destabilizing and likely lead to some sort of reset.
These types aren’t particularly worried about the end of NATO or a fracturing of western alliances. They see these as increasingly destructive coalitions that prevent the re-emergence of a bipolar or multipolar world.
Lastly, you shouldn’t underestimate the importance of being a contrarian and on the opposite side of whatever animates liberals.
That’s why you see Arthur here constantly playing the centrist both-sides do it shtick whenever there’s a front page post criticizing Republicans. His narrative will always be that both parties are the same and equally corrupt.
*irredeemable, of courae
Additionally, I’ll repeat my view that Kushner was seeking a secret back channel in order to facilitate criminal business dealings.
I think even you might be missing the main point. By asserting that main, if not only motivation is to combat terrorism, it puts a benevolent spin on Putin and his actions.
Very very few knowledgeable people deny that a main goal of Putin is the weakening, if not destruction of both the EU and NATO. THAT is what he is up to, not some attempt at forming an alliance against terrorism. That will allow the spread of Russian hegemony and its main philosophy…..right wing authoritarianism.
It’s a bait and switch comment.
.
That doesn’t deny whatever Putin or Trump have in mind. This was Kushner play likely.
When Kislak talked on an insecure line ( and that’s what it had to be) he gave the game away. That makes me believe it was all about the money. Otherwise Kislyak would have used secure encrypted communications. Surely if Trump wanted to pursue some different agenda he would have been smarter than this?
From Kushner’s and Trumps perspective, sure, it’s about the money. More than likely, that’s all they care about. But from the Russian perspective…they have to get something for the money they give access to. What could that be, the requires a Russian only secure line? Lifting the sanctions? OK.
But once that happens, the Russians own everybody….forever. Just asking for a secure communication route opens up a blackmail probability.
You make an agent one step at a time, many times without the target even knowing they are being groomed.
BTW, one has to assume Kushner got what he asked for.
.
But as we know any communication to the Kremlin would have to be encrypted to avoid detection. This comm was intercepted, therefore a phone. Kushner has financial difficulties and may have wanted to deal with a Russian bank outside of sanctions, (see article on Huff Post today). Kislyak may not have been motivated to hide it. It’s either that or someone in the meeting with Flynn, Kushner and Kislyak ratted them out. But then the story about intercepting a comm is not true and maybe a bug listening device in Trump Tower. We don’t really know. So, yeah, I am speculating. So who wrote the letter to WaPo? It is pretty clear Jared will have to talk about it.
Who are these one-note lames, Booman? I mean…really!!! Who or what are they? Do you know? They are pretty nearly running…and ruining…this blog. Is that their real job? I wonder.
Don’t you?
AG
Why do you diminish your somewhat decent post by being a whiny little ass?
Is your persecution complex that bad that you cant be dignified for longer than a few moments at a time?
Fuck you AG for blaming your problems on others. And fuck anyone that does the same.
Stop whining and fluffing, you have something to say, but almost always you fail in communicating it.
Thats what it looks to me anyway, just telling how i see it.
You write:
“…just telling how i see it.”.
Me too.
I used to look forward to coming here…there were many very good posters, very few kneejerk assholes. Now I dread it. I’m beginning to think Booman does too.
Ain’t about “persecution,” bazzz. It’s about blindered, ignorant, partisan stupidity. You know, like what lost HRC the presidency and gave it to Trump instead?
It’s here in all of its glory now. Well over 70% of the comments are coming right from the already defeated “Dems can do no wrong” bloc, and almost all of the downratings as well.
So it goes.
I’m waiting for a third party that has a shot, myself.
All the rest of y’all can go right on with your square dance. You can’t reach the unreachable.
Later…
AG
You are fighting windmills as far as i am concerned, i dont share your vision of “defenders of the democratic party”
Maybe if you were more specific in your criticism i would be convinced, ofcourse there is a lot of rotten crap in both parties, and the process isnt at all as democratic as it should be.
The way i see it is as a choice between sanity and insanity, i have little sympathy for any party, but i certainly experience a lot less gagging with the political left than the right.
A third party in the US would be a nice fantasy, but waiting for it seems like a long shot. When it happens it may go fast, who knows. Right now though, it would be nice for those waiting for an alternative, to at least see difference between insanity and deeply flawed.
The only silver lining i see is that things get fucked up enough by trump that enough people stop accepting authoritarian bs, but that would mean a cultural shift, which i see little evidence for. I would expect the tribes to blame another rather than to change anything, blame the other to absolve yourselves from your sins seems to be working well at the moment.
You rute:
“… I certainly experience a lot less gagging with the political left than the right.”
And there are eithout a doubt many rightist voters who “…experience a lot less gagging with the political right than the left.”
I really think that a great deal of this has to do with which media one consumes, and further to which media one is predisposed. (“Tranced-into,” to put it in a more accurate manner. From birth, most often.)
Me?
I dropped out of all predispositions in about 1964. I experience “gagging” from both sides.
R. Crumb, 1964 or thereabouts:
Same shit, different decade(s).
So it goes.
AG
This is somewhat off-topic, but I would be curious what you thought of Ignatius’ column today on Kushner. He seems to buy the argument that Kushner’s meetings with Sergey Gorkov was nothing more than an attempt to set up a back-channel to the Kremlin, and the only real question is whether this violated the Logan Act (a fairly minor foul, given that this is never enforced). In other words, nothing truly nefarious or corrupt here.
Given that Ignatius is often taken to be a mouthpiece for the intelligence community, I was surprised that he took such a Kushner-favorable stance.
We should stop calling it an attempted ‘back channel’.
Call it for what it was,
An attempt at a covert channel with the intelligence service of a hostile power, using their secure lines, in order to avoid scrutiny from the US government.
.
Back channel sounds like ordinary stuff. This is covert and it was attempted before Trump was President. A bit of hubris there as well.
. . . off Mr. Trump”
So “Mr.” Trump has expelled/is about to expel himself from his own orbit??? That would be, um, “interesting”.
Or it’s “warranted”, but that doesn’t mean he does it?
He was or is miffed at son in law Jared. Prolly not going to throw him out but who knows what Donald is going to do.
Consistent application of the bolded “standard” would require that Trump expel himself from his own orbit (a neat trick whose result I wouldn’t mind seeing!).
It works if only Trump and his children and their spouses are allowed to profit off of Trump. The extended in-laws aren’t. All in the family!
OT but I can’t resist. CNBC reports the Trump budget resting on 3% growth is DOA, meaning he can never balance the budget. But the thing that got me interested was the economics. Seems you can only increase GDP by more labor and/or increased productivity. On the labor side expelling and discouraging immigrants and the ever retiring baby boomers are a problem. And on the productivity side if there is no money or interest in education and student loans, there is no money nor interest for training people to be more productive.
Senator Booker seems to be going to bat for Kushner.