Choiseul on the Move | Civic Lens | National Interest First
Around the Caribbean, we often hear it said plainly: “CBI is keeping the lights on.” And in many ways, that’s true—Citizenship by Investment (CBI) has helped small states raise revenue, fund projects, and stay afloat in a tough global economy.
But here’s the flip side: to the United States, CBI is not just a business model. It’s a border, security, and financial risk question. That’s why Washington keeps circling these programmes like a hawk. Not because the USA hates the Caribbean— but because the USA hates anything that creates a “shortcut” around its security and sanctions systems.
The USA Treats Passports as Security Tools — Not Products
In America’s worldview, citizenship is supposed to reflect deep ties: residence, long-term checks, and accountability. CBI flips that idea into a transaction: invest a set amount, pass checks, and gain a passport—often without living in the country.
Even when due diligence is strong, the USA worries about the “weakest link” problem: one bad approval in any programme can ripple through international travel, banking, and enforcement systems.
Sanctions Evasion Is the Big Red Flag
This is where the headache really starts. The USA uses sanctions to block certain individuals and networks from moving money, travelling freely, and doing business internationally. A second passport can make it easier for bad actors to rebrand themselves—new nationality, new paperwork, new routes.
US agencies have warned financial institutions that CBI passports can be misused to mask identity and origin, especially when the goal is to get around restrictions.
Money Laundering and “Professional Middlemen”
Another major concern is illicit finance—money laundering, fraud, and shady funds dressed up as “investment.” Global watchdogs have flagged that risk isn’t only about the applicant; it can also involve the intermediaries and enablers: agents, promoters, lawyers, and fixers who push volume and commissions.
When that ecosystem gets too hungry, corners can get cut. And once trust is shaken, the consequences don’t fall on the agent alone—they fall on the country brand.
Reputation Damage Can Hit Banking First
Here’s what people in Choiseul/Saltibus should understand: if the USA or major partners lose confidence in a country’s passport system, the pressure doesn’t stop at travel talk. It can spill into banking relationships, extra scrutiny for wire transfers, tougher compliance checks, and reputational drag that slows investment.
Travel Restrictions: A Sign of How Fast Things Can Change
The region has already seen how quickly travel policy can tighten when the USA claims national security concerns tied to passport integrity and investment citizenship. Once restrictions hit, it affects ordinary people—not just “investors”: family travel, medical travel, study plans, business trips, and diaspora connections.
So Where Does Saint Lucia Stand?
Saint Lucia has a real balancing act:
- We need revenue to build, modernize, and fund national priorities.
- We need credibility to protect our people’s travel options and our banking access.
- We need transparency so citizens can trust that the programme serves national development, not private pockets.
What Strong Reform Looks Like (Plain Talk)
If CBI is to survive in a world of tighter borders and aggressive financial enforcement, Saint Lucia must stay ahead of the curve:
- Relentless due diligence (no shortcuts, no political favours).
- Clear public reporting on how funds are used—so citizens see national benefit.
- Stronger oversight of agents and intermediaries to prevent “passport sales culture.”
- Fast action on red flags—revocations, investigations, and cross-border cooperation where needed.
Choiseul on the Move Take
This is not about being “pro-CBI” or “anti-CBI.” It’s about being pro-Saint Lucia. If a programme is bringing in money but damaging our name, squeezing our banks, or risking travel blowback, then the nation must demand better governance—full stop.
The world has changed. Big countries are tightening the screws. And small states can’t afford to be casual with something as serious as citizenship.
Final word: If CBI is part of Saint Lucia’s future, then transparency, security, and accountability must be non-negotiable.
What do you think? Should Saint Lucia publish clearer reports on CBI revenue and spending? Should Parliament strengthen oversight? Let’s discuss it—respectfully, but honestly.










