The Ethics of Selling Sovereignty

The Ethics of Selling Sovereignty: Why the Debate on Golden Visas Misses the Point

In recent years, golden visas and Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programs have been consistently criticised. Critics argue that these initiatives effectively “sell” national sovereignty, reducing citizenship to a marketable commodity and undermining its intrinsic value. This initial perception is understandable at first glance.

However, since working with clients in this industry, I have come to realise that while these concerns are worth discussing, the moral outrage often misses the deeper issue. The debate around golden visas tends to focus on optics. Not on the fundamental inequality embedded in the global mobility system itself.

This debate is not fundamentally about ethics – it is about access. Until we address the geopolitical imbalance that determines who is free to move and who is not, we are simply treating the symptoms of a larger problem.

Citizenship Has Always Been Transactional

The notion that citizenship is, or has ever been, a sacred civic bond untethered from economic or political considerations does not withstand historical scrutiny. Throughout history, citizenship has been a tool shaped by power, wealth, and utility. For instance:

• In the 19th century, the United States and several Latin American countries offered expedited naturalisation to foreign investors and settlers to stimulate development. The Homestead Act of 1862 and various Naturalisation Acts (1790–1906) prioritised economic contribution, particularly from European migrants.
• During the colonial period, the issuance (or denial) of travel documents was determined by racial hierarchies, class structures, and economic relevance. The passport itself was not standardised until the 20th century, and prior forms of documentation reflected imperial priorities more than civic belonging.
• In the present day, many OECD nations offer routes to permanent residency through business creation, investment, or employment quotas. Just without the stigma attached to formal ‘golden visa’ branding.

In light of this, we should not pretend that citizenship was ever purely about civic participation or a social contract. It has always involved pragmatic trade-offs; the process is simply more transparent now.

Who’s Buying Citizenship and Why?

One of the more persistent misconceptions is that CBI applicants are oligarchs or billionaires treating passports as luxury accessories. In reality, most clients fall into very different categories:

• Entrepreneurs from politically unstable countries looking for secure banking, contractual protections, and freedom of movement.
• Parents seeking access to better education, healthcare, and security for their children.
• Professionals hedging against threats such as authoritarianism, conflict, or currency collapse.

These individuals are not purchasing a national identity. They are purchasing legal stability and mobility. They are seeking a form of security that many of us in the Global North take for granted. Often, they are doing so because their own governments have failed to provide even the most basic guarantees of safety and due process.

The Global Mobility Caste System

The country of one’s birth is the single greatest determinant of global mobility. A German passport offers visa-free access to over 190 countries. An Afghan passport, fewer than 30.

This inverse relationship between need and access is central. Those from unstable, conflict-prone, or impoverished countries, those who would benefit most from greater mobility are often the most restricted. Golden visa programmes did not create this hierarchy, but they do reveal it.

Sovereignty Isn’t Being Sold. It’s Being Negotiated

A frequent critique is that offering citizenship for investment ‘cheapens’ sovereignty. But sovereignty is not a fixed or sacred entity. It is negotiated constantly through trade agreements, regulatory frameworks, security alliances, and capital flows.

If a country sells bonds to foreign investors, does that undermine sovereignty? If it offers tax incentives to multinational corporations in exchange for economic development, is that a betrayal of national identity?

Why then is offering legal residence or citizenship under regulated conditions inherently different?

Particularly when such programmes can provide tangible public benefits. Portugal’s golden visa initiative, for example, has attracted over €7 billion in investment. The influx of capital helped Portugal recover from the post-2008 sovereign debt crisis, boosting construction, hospitality, and legal services. After Hurricane Maria devastated Dominica in 2017 (destroying 90% of infrastructure), the government used funds from Dominica’s CBI program to rebuild roads, hospitals, and housing. The program has helped fund the Climate Resilience Execution Agency for Dominica (CREAD) and major housing developments for displaced families.

If we are truly concerned with the ethics of citizenship, we need to ask more foundational questions:

• Why does a passport dictate life chances more than education, talent, or hard work?
• Why is capital permitted to move freely across borders, while people are not?

It is inconsistent to vilify countries that transparently monetise access while ignoring the more discreet mechanisms through which wealth already purchases opportunity elsewhere.

Golden visa programmes are not perfect. But in an increasingly unstable world marked by authoritarian resurgence, climate migration, and economic sanctions, a second citizenship is not merely a luxury. It is for many, a form of survival.

Until we address global inequality at its root, the moral question is not why people are seeking to buy access to safer countries. The real question is: Why must they?

Book a Consultation

Tags: Insights, Lavanya