{"id":951980,"date":"2026-07-22T14:24:15","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T14:24:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/951980\/"},"modified":"2026-07-22T14:24:15","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T14:24:15","slug":"stealing-peoples-money-nyc-immigrant-advocates-say-theres-no-legal-justification-for-trump-admins-potential-100k-bond-on-green-cards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/951980\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Stealing people\u2019s money\u2019: NYC immigrant advocates say there\u2019s no legal justification for Trump admin\u2019s potential $100K bond on green cards"},"content":{"rendered":"

New York City immigrant advocates say not only is there no legal justification for a plan the Trump administration is reportedly<\/a> floating to require people seeking a green card pay a $100,000 bond, but it would also result in a harmful and unnecessary wealth litmus test for citizenship.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal last week reported<\/a> that Trump\u2019s State Department is considering requiring a $100,000 bond for some green-card applicants at U.S. consulates abroad seeking permanent U.S. residency, according to people familiar with the plans. Those people told the Wall Street Journal that applicants would only receive the money back after becoming U.S. citizens, a process that takes at least five years, and that the bond would serve as collateral if the green card holder used any public benefits.<\/p>\n

If the person received any public benefits before they became a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether they\u2019re federal, state, local or tribal, and regardless of whether they\u2019re on long-term welfare assistance or a few months of SNAP benefits, the entirety of their $100,000 bond would be seized by the government.<\/p>\n

The Legal Aid Society<\/a> told amNewYork that this is not how citizenship should be handled. It argued that Trump\u2019s plan, which they believe is not likely to survive a court challenge, is just another part of the administration\u2019s attempt to quash immigration.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201c$100,000 \u2013 Where does that number even come from?\u201d said Legal Aid staff attorney Hasan Shafiqullah. \u201cThis is a deliberate move by the Trump administration to limit family-based immigration and to limit immigration generally.\u201d<\/p>\n

When asked for comment by amNewYork, State Department Spokesperson Tommy Pigott did not explicitly confirm or deny whether the federal government is considering a $100,000 bond for some green card applications, but said that Trump \u201chas made clear that those who wish to immigrate to the United States must be financially self-sufficient\u201d and the Department of State is \u201cputting that principle into action.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to introduce commonsense and effective procedures to enforce U.S. laws, restore the integrity of our immigration system, and protect American public benefits programs from the financial burden of foreigners who arrive with major expensive medical or other needs,\u201d Pigott said in a statement.<\/p>\n

As for the legal justification of such a proposal, Pigott said the department is exploring the use of a long-standing legal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to require certain visa applicants\u202f\u2013\u202fthose who\u202fare otherwise ineligible for a visa because they are likely\u202fto become a public charge \u2013\u202fto\u202fpost a\u202fbond as a way to demonstrate they have access to the funds needed to support themselves.<\/p>\n

Shafiqullah said this isn\u2019t a valid justification for a few reasons. The idea of assessing whether someone attempting to immigrate to the U.S. will be a public charge isn\u2019t a new one, but she said what appears to be floated is an unjustifiably broad approach.<\/p>\n

Typically, a person has been considered a public charge if they are receiving long-term welfare cash assistance that they are dependent on for their survival, such as living in a government-funded nursing home. <\/p>\n

Under the federal government\u2019s new alleged and published proposals, receiving any public benefits at all would make someone a public charge \u2013 even just accessing a few months of SNAP benefits if you temporarily lose your job.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Additionally, Shafiqullah said, if somebody pays the government a bond, it has to be reasonably related to the benefit they\u2019re seeking and rationally related to the risk the government incurs by providing that benefit. She says this $100,000 federal bond wouldn\u2019t be.<\/p>\n

For one, it\u2019s unlikely someone would ever use $100,000 of public benefits while on a green card waiting for citizenship, particularly because there are very few public benefits people are eligible for when they\u2019re not a U.S. citizen.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAm I really going to be using $100,000 worth of benefits [if I\u2019m seeking citizenship on a green card]? Is that a reasonable reimbursement?\u201d Shafiqullah said. \u201cAnd, it\u2019s not like if I use like $1 of benefits, they\u2019ll give me back all but $1 of $100,000.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re going to keep the entire $100,000,\u201d she continued. \u201cThat is totally crazy. That is not a way to ensure that people are not becoming a public charge. It\u2019s a way of stealing people\u2019s money. And, it\u2019s not rationally related to the risk that the government is running that I might be on these benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

Creating an arbitrary paywall for immigration<\/p>\n

Additionally, Shafiqullah noted, the bond would be paid under the guise of reimbursing the federal government if someone uses benefits \u2014 yet it is considered breached even if an immigrant receives state or local benefits. The states themselves would not be reimbursed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Shafiqullah said showing the government a simple affidavit of support proving that you or your family would be able to support you in the country should be enough. Having to pay a bond of any amount makes no sense, she said, because the majority of immigrants seeking to become citizens this way are moving to the U.S. to be with their families, who could support them, and to seek jobs that would pay them.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The New York Civil Liberties Union and local New York City immigration firms also pushed back on the potential Trump proposal, citing concerns that it would create an arbitrary paywall to an immigration pathway used by many New York City families.<\/p>\n

\u201cImmigrants deserve a fair process and to be reunited with their families \u2014 not arbitrary financial hurdles from the government,\u201d said Zach Ahmad, senior policy counsel for the NYCLU. \u201cThis proposal is another example of the Trump Administration\u2019s cruel agenda that will block applicants without significant resources and harm families. Obtaining a green card should never be a wealth litmus test.\u201d<\/p>\n

Queens attorney Daniel Drucker of Jackson Heights\u2019 Drucker Law Firm<\/a> said the practical effect of such a policy would be to make lawful immigration significantly more difficult for applicants without substantial financial resources.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf implemented, this policy would likely favor applicants with significant financial resources over those whose primary asset is their ability to work and contribute to the country,\u201d Drucker said. \u201cThat\u2019s a significant shift in how legal immigration has traditionally operated.\u201d<\/p>\n

Drucker, who has represented immigrants for decades, said he expects that if the proposal is finalized, it will generate legal challenges and raise broader questions about whether financial status should become a determining factor in obtaining lawful permanent residence.<\/p>\n

\u201cMany qualified immigrants who have followed the legal process simply do not have access to $100,000,\u201d the Queens attorney said. \u201cWhether the money comes from the applicant or family members, the requirement could place permanent residency out of reach for countless families.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"New York City immigrant advocates say not only is there no legal justification for a plan the Trump…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":951981,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5122],"tags":[5229,109387,409,3228,405,403,5226,5225,5228,5227,5005,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-951980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-york","tag-america","tag-green-card","tag-immigration","tag-law","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-newyork","tag-newyorkcity","tag-ny","tag-nyc","tag-president-donald-trump","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116964089348914662","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/951980","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=951980"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/951980\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/951981"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=951980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=951980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=951980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}