A July publication by IMI Daily, an investment migration trade outlet, has argued that governments should not scrap the property-based golden visa but should instead make it "earn its keep." The piece, titled "Don't Scrap the Property Golden Visa. Make It Earn Its Keep," takes a clear position: reform the programme rather than abolish it.

The argument arrives amid pressure on residency-by-investment schemes across multiple jurisdictions. Several European Union member states have moved to restrict or end golden visa programmes that route investment into real estate, and the European Commission has repeatedly pressed governments to phase out schemes it views as security and integrity risks. IMI Daily, which represents the investment migration industry's perspective, contests the abolitionist direction.

What does the article actually propose?

The headline states the core proposal: keep the property golden visa, but demand more from it. The phrase "make it earn its keep" signals support for conditional reform — higher standards, tighter rules, or restructured requirements — rather than outright termination of the programme.

Readers should note what the headline does not say. The title alone does not specify which country's programme it addresses, what investment thresholds it proposes to change, or which eligibility rules it would tighten. The published headline carries no numbers, no deadlines, and no named jurisdiction. Any specific figure circulating on this story does not come from this title.

Who is affected?

Property golden visas typically grant residency rights to foreign nationals who purchase real estate above a set minimum value. Investors, developers, and migration agents hold a direct stake in whether such programmes survive; applicants and their families hold a stake in whether existing rules change mid-stream.

However, the article's audience and target government are not identified in the headline itself. The piece reads as a contribution to an industry debate about programme design, not as a report of a legislative change. No government has announced new rules on the basis of this article, and nothing in the title indicates an official proposal.

What should readers watch next?

The burden of proof sits with the article's author. A credible case for keeping the property golden visa would need to name the programme, cite its investment thresholds, and show what reforms would deliver measurable public benefit. Without those specifics, "earn its keep" remains a slogan rather than a policy.

Investment migration watchers should track the official gazettes of countries that currently operate property-linked golden visas — among them Portugal, Spain, and Greece, all of which have debated or altered their schemes in recent years — rather than rely on industry commentary alone. When a government publishes an amendment, the decree will state the new thresholds, effective dates, and transitional deadlines. IMI Daily's article, as its headline indicates, offers an argument, not a regulation.

This report covers a publication identified by title and outlet only. Passport File has not independently verified the full text of the article, and readers should consult the original IMI Daily piece and any cited official sources before drawing conclusions about a specific programme.

By Olivia Hart, Passport File