As South America’s second-largest economy continues to grapple with long-standing financing gaps and restricted access to global capital markets, Argentina is moving forward with plans to roll out a groundbreaking citizenship-by-investment (CBI) initiative by the end of 2024, multiple sources close to the planning process told the Financial Times. The program, designed to draw high-net-worth foreign investors in exchange for full Argentine citizenship, is still refining its final eligibility requirements, but preliminary proposals outline two primary pathways to qualify: a non-refundable contribution of roughly $500,000 to state coffers, or the purchase of $1 million worth of Argentine zero-coupon sovereign bonds.
The new CBI scheme is a core plank of President Javier Milei’s pro-market economic agenda, which prioritizes unlocking large volumes of foreign capital to help the country meet its looming sovereign debt obligations. Since Argentina restructured nearly $65 billion in sovereign debt in 2020, the nation has been effectively shut out of most international capital markets, leaving policymakers scrambling to identify alternative financing sources to stabilize the country’s fragile economy. If the program launches as planned, Argentina will join a small group of nations offering investment-backed citizenship, and will stand out as one of the largest countries globally to operate such a scheme. For successful applicants, Argentine citizenship unlocks substantial travel benefits: an Argentine passport grants visa-free or visa-on-arrival entry to almost 170 countries and territories worldwide, making it a highly attractive option for investors seeking expanded global mobility.
The proposal builds on sweeping changes to Argentina’s citizenship regulations enacted by the executive branch last year, but those earlier reforms are currently tied up in domestic legal battles. Critics of the changes argue that Argentina’s constitution explicitly grants Congress, not the sitting president’s administration, the exclusive authority to set rules governing nationality and citizenship, a legal challenge that could ultimately delay or derail the broader CBI initiative.
Proponents of the plan frame it as a win-win for both Argentina and participating investors. Amid rising global geopolitical fragmentation and economic uncertainty, many high-net-worth individuals are seeking alternative residency and citizenship options to diversify their exposure and secure greater travel freedom. Supporters argue that Argentina’s unique combination of geographic size, natural resources, and passport benefits makes it an unmatched offering in the global CBI market. “There is simply nothing else like Argentina in the citizenship-by-investment market,” Eric Major, chief executive of Latitude Group, a global mobility consultancy that provided advisory support to the Argentine government on the program, told the Financial Times.
Despite these optimistic projections, the initiative has faced sharp pushback from legal scholars, transparency campaigners, and former government officials, who warn that CBI programs carry inherent risks related to national security, weak governance, and inadequate regulatory oversight. Many critics argue that unregulated investment-backed citizenship schemes can create openings for money laundering, corruption, and entry for individuals with criminal backgrounds, risks that Argentina’s already stretched regulatory system may be ill-equipped to manage.
Paula Carello, an experienced immigration lawyer and former senior official at Argentina’s national citizenship office, argues that the potential downsides of the program far outweigh the limited economic benefits it could generate. “The many risks associated with this type of programme outweigh the benefits for a country of its size and profile,” Carello said. She also raised alarm about the lack of inclusive public debate surrounding the initiative, noting that changes to citizenship touch on core foundational aspects of national identity, and that moving forward with such a sweeping policy without input from across the political spectrum, academic circles, and major national institutions is a troubling overreach by the current administration.