A decade ago, global mobility sat at the margins of policy debate. Residency and citizenship programs were often treated as temporary fixes or political exceptions, useful in moments of crisis, but rarely framed as durable instruments of economic policy.
That framing no longer holds.
Across regions, programs are opening and closing, investment routes that once defined the industry are being reworked or abandoned, and governments are reassessing not just how much capital they attract, but where that capital should go. Passive real estate, long the default entry point, is increasingly giving way to more targeted pathways tied to climate resilience, innovation, and cultural development.
Behind the scenes, the mechanics are changing just as quickly. Tighter due-diligence standards, digitalised application systems, and more sophisticated screening tools are reshaping how programs operate. What was once a fragmented landscape is beginning to resemble a coordinated policy space, shaped by regulation, geopolitics, and rising expectations of accountability.
These developments are explored in depth in a recent Be Global podcast conversation with Patricia Casaburi, CEO of Global Citizen Solutions, alongside insights from the firm’s recent global intelligence briefing. Together, they offer a clear picture of how global mobility is evolving, and why the changes underway matter now.
From exception to policy instrument
Long before residency and citizenship programs entered Europe’s policy toolkit, they were already being used elsewhere out of necessity.
In the Caribbean, small island states recognised early that citizenship programs could function as a source of development capital. Highly exposed to hurricanes and constrained by limited revenue streams, these countries used mobility frameworks to fund infrastructure, strengthen public services, and build economic resilience. In some cases, revenues grew to represent double-digit shares of national GDP, supporting healthcare, education, tourism infrastructure, and climate adaptation.
For example, after Hurricane Maria devastated Dominica in 2017, citizenship revenues played a central role in rebuilding schools, hospitals, and climate-resilient housing. The results were immediate, reinforcing the view that mobility programs could serve as practical tools for national recovery.
Europe reached a similar conclusion later, under different conditions. Following the global financial crisis, countries such as Portugal, Greece, and Spain faced tightening public finances and stalled real-estate markets. Residency programs offered a way to inject foreign capital without the social friction often associated with traditional immigration.
“The acceptance norm changed,” Casaburi says. “Ten years ago, these programs were controversial. Today they’re recognised as legitimate tools to enhance GDP and improve the quality of investment coming in. The conversation moved from should we do this to how do we design this responsibly.”
Once treated as legitimate policy instruments rather than exceptions, these programs expanded quickly—and matured just as fast.
Mobility as strategy
Who chooses to become mobile today—and why—looks markedly different from even a few years ago.
What stands out is not a single trigger, but a convergence of pressures. Geopolitics, taxation, regulation, and perception increasingly intersect, shaping how individuals approach mobility decisions. Importantly, this does not always reflect economic decline.
As Casaburi explains, demand patterns often map where economic or political anxiety is building, even in otherwise stable economies. In many cases, it is less about present conditions and more about anticipated constraints—particularly around capital movement, taxation, or regulatory direction.
The effects vary by region. Chinese nationals, long dominant in programs such as the U.S. EB-5 and the Greek Golden Visa, are increasingly acting quickly to diversify assets abroad. Nigerian applicants are rising sharply across Caribbean citizenship programs. Americans are now the leading nationality in Portugal’s Golden Visa, driven less by necessity than by political uncertainty, tax planning, and lifestyle considerations. Post-Brexit, British nationals continue to look beyond the UK, factoring in a more restrictive tax environment alongside mobility concerns. Middle Eastern investors, meanwhile, are seeking stability and tax efficiency across Europe, the Caribbean, and North America.
The clearest shift, Casaburi notes, is the growing presence of applicants from stable democracies. Americans, Britons, Germans, and Canadians—once peripheral to investment migration—are now among the fastest-growing segments.
“This isn’t about people from emerging markets seeking better passports anymore,” she says. “You have people from very stable countries building their Plan B.”
Mobility, in this context, has become strategic. Residency and citizenship planning is no longer reactive. It is increasingly used to manage risk, preserve optionality, and navigate an unpredictable global environment.
Programs with purpose
As demand has evolved, so has program design.
Governments are no longer treating residency and citizenship pathways as neutral capital-attraction tools. Increasingly, they are being built around defined policy objectives. Investment is being channelled into specific priorities—climate resilience, innovation, cultural heritage, and long-term economic development, marking a decisive move away from the real-estate-heavy models that once dominated the industry.
This shift is particularly visible in the Middle East. Casaburi points to Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Abu Dhabi as jurisdictions designing programs that follow the trajectory set by Dubai, where residency pathways have been closely tied to economic diversification, talent attraction, and sector development. Rather than absorbing passive inflows, these frameworks are designed to support ecosystems governments want to grow.
Elsewhere, similar patterns are emerging. Programs are being redesigned rather than abandoned, often incorporating objectives such as climate migration or digital mobility. Dubai’s early move into digital residency has since been echoed globally. At the same time, countries across Latin America and Asia are launching more structured residency and citizenship frameworks, with clearer eligibility criteria and more targeted investment routes.
Selectivity as the new norm
As investment migration moves further into the policy mainstream, governments are also becoming more selective.
Migration remains politically sensitive, Casaburi notes, and that reality is reshaping program architecture. Broad, open-ended frameworks are giving way to targeted pathways designed to attract specific forms of capital, talent, and long-term contribution.
This selectivity shows up in tighter eligibility criteria, narrower investment routes, and clearer expectations around economic and social impact. The most resilient programs are those that can demonstrate value on both sides—delivering credible outcomes for investors while advancing defined national objectives.
Global mobility, redefined
For governments, the challenge is no longer whether to engage with mobility frameworks, but how to design them credibly. For individuals, the decision to become mobile is less about escape and more about foresight.
To hear the full conversation behind these insights, listen to the latest episode of Be Global, featuring Patricia Casaburi, CEO of Global Citizen Solutions.