New York City immigrant advocates say not only is there no legal justification for a plan the Trump administration is reportedly 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. 

The Wall Street Journal last week reported that Trump’s 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.

If the person received any public benefits before they became a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether they’re federal, state, local or tribal, and regardless of whether they’re 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.

The Legal Aid Society told amNewYork that this is not how citizenship should be handled. It argued that Trump’s plan, which they believe is not likely to survive a court challenge, is just another part of the administration’s attempt to quash immigration. 

“$100,000 – Where does that number even come from?” said Legal Aid staff attorney Hasan Shafiqullah. “This is a deliberate move by the Trump administration to limit family-based immigration and to limit immigration generally.”

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 “has made clear that those who wish to immigrate to the United States must be financially self-sufficient” and the Department of State is “putting that principle into action.”

“We 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,” Pigott said in a statement.

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 – those who are otherwise ineligible for a visa because they are likely to become a public charge – to post a bond as a way to demonstrate they have access to the funds needed to support themselves.

Shafiqullah said this isn’t 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’t a new one, but she said what appears to be floated is an unjustifiably broad approach.

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.

Under the federal government’s new alleged and published proposals, receiving any public benefits at all would make someone a public charge – even just accessing a few months of SNAP benefits if you temporarily lose your job.  

Additionally, Shafiqullah said, if somebody pays the government a bond, it has to be reasonably related to the benefit they’re seeking and rationally related to the risk the government incurs by providing that benefit. She says this $100,000 federal bond wouldn’t be.

For one, it’s 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’re not a U.S. citizen. 

“Am I really going to be using $100,000 worth of benefits [if I’m seeking citizenship on a green card]? Is that a reasonable reimbursement?” Shafiqullah said. “And, it’s not like if I use like $1 of benefits, they’ll give me back all but $1 of $100,000.”

“They’re going to keep the entire $100,000,” she continued. “That is totally crazy. That is not a way to ensure that people are not becoming a public charge. It’s a way of stealing people’s money. And, it’s not rationally related to the risk that the government is running that I might be on these benefits.”

Creating an arbitrary paywall for immigration

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

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. 

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.

“Immigrants deserve a fair process and to be reunited with their families — not arbitrary financial hurdles from the government,” said Zach Ahmad, senior policy counsel for the NYCLU. “This proposal is another example of the Trump Administration’s cruel agenda that will block applicants without significant resources and harm families. Obtaining a green card should never be a wealth litmus test.”

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

“If 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,” Drucker said. “That’s a significant shift in how legal immigration has traditionally operated.”

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.

“Many qualified immigrants who have followed the legal process simply do not have access to $100,000,” the Queens attorney said. “Whether the money comes from the applicant or family members, the requirement could place permanent residency out of reach for countless families.”