Immigrant rights advocates in New York City say there is no legal justification for the plan the Trump administration is reportedly considering, which would require some green card applicants to pay a $100,000 bond. In addition, they warn that the measure would turn access to permanent residence – and, eventually, US citizenship – into a test of economic capacity.
Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department is studying requiring this bonus for certain permanent residence applicants who process their case in US consulates abroad. According to sources familiar with the proposal, the money would only be refunded once the person obtains US citizenship, a process that typically takes at least five years. The bond would function as a guarantee in case the green card holder receives public benefits.
If the measure goes through, any applicant who uses public benefits before naturalizing — whether federal, state, local or tribal, regardless of whether it is long-term assistance or a few months of help from the SNAP program — would lose the entire $100,000 bonus, which would be confiscated by the government.
The Legal Aid Society told our sister publication, amNewYork, that this is not the appropriate path to regulate access to citizenship. The organization considers the proposal, which would hardly survive a court challenge, to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to restrict immigration.
“$100,000? Where does that figure even come from?” asked Hasan Shafiqullah, a staff attorney at Legal Aid. “This is a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to limit immigration based on family reunification and restrict immigration generally.”
Consulted by amNewYork, State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott did not confirm or deny that the government is considering requiring a $100,000 bonus for some green card applications. However, he stated that Trump “has made clear that those who wish to immigrate to the United States must be financially self-sufficient” and that the State Department is “putting that principle into practice.”
“We are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to implement effective, common-sense procedures to enforce United States laws, restore the integrity of the immigration system, and protect public benefit programs from the financial burden posed by aliens arriving with costly medical or other needs,” Pigott said in a statement.
Regarding the legal basis of the proposal, Pigott explained that the Department is considering resorting to an authority provided for decades in the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision allows a voucher to be required from certain visa applicants who would otherwise be considered inadmissible because they are likely to become a “public charge”, as a way of demonstrating that they have sufficient resources to support themselves.
However, Shafiqullah maintains that this interpretation does not hold up legally. He explained that the concept of “public charge” is not new, but that the proposal represents an unjustified expansion of that criterion.
Traditionally, a person was considered a public charge when they were permanently dependent on government financial assistance to survive, for example, by residing in a publicly funded nursing home.
Under the proposed proposal, however, it would be enough to receive any public benefit to be considered a public charge, even if a person only temporarily accessed food assistance from the SNAP program after losing their job.
Furthermore, Shafiqullah pointed out that, when the government requires a bonus, it must bear a reasonable relationship to both the benefit requested and the economic risk assumed by the State. In his opinion, a bond of $100,000 does not comply with that principle.
For one thing, it is unlikely that a permanent resident will ever use $100,000 in public benefits while waiting to become a citizen, especially since noncitizens have limited access to most of these programs.
“Am I really going to use $100,000 in benefits while I wait for citizenship with a green card? Is that a reasonable refund?” Shafiqullah questioned. “And it’s not like if I use one dollar in benefits I’ll get the other $99,999 back.”
“They would keep the full $100,000,” he continued. “That’s totally absurd. It’s not a way to prevent someone from becoming a public charge. It’s a way to steal people’s money. Plus, it bears no reasonable relationship to the supposed risk the government is assuming.”
An economic barrier to immigrate
Shafiqullah also questioned whether the bonus is presented as a mechanism to reimburse the federal government if a person uses public benefits. However, the money could be lost even if the immigrant receives state or local assistance, although those governments would never be compensated.
The lawyer argued that an affidavit of support should be sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant or his or her family will be able to support him financially in the United States. In his opinion, demanding a bonus makes no sense, since the majority of those who apply for permanent residence in this way emigrate to join their families and work.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and several immigration law firms in New York City also rejected the proposal, believing that it would impose an arbitrary economic barrier on an immigration route used by thousands of families.
“Immigrants deserve a fair process and the opportunity to be reunited with their families, not arbitrary financial obstacles imposed by the government,” said Zach Ahmad, senior policy advisor at the NYCLU. “This proposal is another example of the Trump administration’s cruel agenda. It will lock out those without significant financial resources and will harm thousands of families. Getting a green card should never depend on wealth.”
Daniel Drucker, an immigration attorney at the Drucker Law Firm in Jackson Heights, Queens, warned that, in practice, such a policy would make legal immigration significantly more difficult for those without significant wealth.
“If implemented, this policy would favor applicants with greater financial resources over those whose greatest asset is their ability to work and contribute to the country,” Drucker said. “That would be a profound change from the way legal immigration has historically worked.”
Drucker, who has been representing immigrants for decades, anticipated that if the proposal becomes official policy, it will face multiple court challenges and reignite the debate over whether economic capacity should become a requirement for obtaining legal permanent residency.
“Many fully qualified immigrants who have followed the legal process simply do not have access to $100,000,” the attorney concluded. “Whether the money comes from the applicant or their family members, this requirement could leave permanent residency out of reach for countless families.”
