I'm not seeing the contradiction you're apparently seeing. First, the Gold Card doesn't simply hand someone U.S. citizenship for $1 million. It provides a route to lawful permanent residency for someone who passes the required vetting and makes a substantial financial contribution to the United States. Citizenship would still require going through the naturalization process. But more importantly, you're comparing two completely different things. Birth tourism is someone deliberately coming to the United States to give birth so the child automatically acquires U.S. citizenship simply by being born on U.S. soil. The Gold Card is an immigration policy deliberately designed by the United States to select people we believe will provide substantial economic benefit to the country. They apply, they're vetted, and they make a $1 million or $2 million contribution to the United States. Personally, I don't have a problem with that concept. If someone from another country has the resources to contribute $1 million to the United States, passes our background and security checks, qualifies for legal permanent residency, supports themselves rather than becoming a burden on taxpayers and eventually meets the requirements for citizenship, why would I oppose that? In fact, I'd rather have an immigration system that asks, “What does this person bring to the United States?” than one where citizenship can be obtained for a child simply because the parents managed to arrange for the birth to occur on American soil. You may disagree with that policy, but there's nothing inherently inconsistent about opposing birth tourism while supporting selective legal immigration based on economic contribution. One is about exploiting an automatic consequence of where a child is born. The other is the United States deliberately deciding whom it wants to admit and under what conditions. Those aren't contradictory positions.
