10
Loading video...
By Billal Rahman
Immigration Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A proposed $100,000 green card applicant bond for some immigrants seeking permanent residence in the United States could trigger legal challenges over whether the Trump administration has the authority to impose such a financial requirement, experts said.
The proposal, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, would require some immigrant visa applicants applying through U.S. consulates abroad to post a bond that could reach $100,000. The Trump administration has tightened control around legal immigration pathways to make things more difficult and expensive for immigrants.
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott told Newsweek in a statement over email that President Donald Trump "has made clear that those who wish to immigrate to the United States must be financially self-sufficient."
Read More on News
Pigott said the State Department is working with the Department of Homeland Security to explore the use of existing immigration authorities that allow officials to require bonds in certain cases involving applicants who may be considered likely to become a public charge.
"This commonsense solution serves a dual purpose—preserving public assistance resources for hardworking Americans while giving applicants who have the resources to pay their own way another option to demonstrate their self-sufficiency and qualify for a U.S. visa," Pigott said.
Immigration attorney Charles Kuck told Newsweek any effort to expand bond requirements to green card applicants would almost certainly face legal challenges, even though federal immigration law contains provisions allowing the government to require bonds in some public-charge cases.
...
Kuck said the administration would likely rely on existing federal immigration law, including provisions that allow bonds in certain public-charge cases.
"There's daylight between 'bond tied to an individualized public-charge determination' and 'bond imposed categorically based on nationality or country-of-origin risk factors,'" Kuck said.
Kuck said a requirement applied broadly across immigrant visa categories, rather than based on individual assessments, could face challenges in court.
"If the administration tries to import the nationality-based, categorical approach into the immigrant visa context rather than tying bonds to individualized public-charge findings, that's a much weaker fit with the statute and a real point of vulnerability. Either way, there will be lawsuits."
Kuck said opponents of the administration's new bond would likely argue that immigration law does not authorize blanket bond requirements for broad categories of immigrant visa applicants. Other challenges could focus on how the policy is implemented, including whether the administration follows the federal rulemaking process and adequately explains its reasoning.
He said challengers are also likely to argue that the proposal is unnecessary because immigration law already includes safeguards designed to ensure new immigrants can support themselves financially, including existing public-charge screening and financial sponsorship requirements.
Supporters of the proposal argue that bonds could provide an additional way for applicants to demonstrate they have the financial resources to support themselves and reduce potential costs to public benefit programs.
The proposal is still under consideration, and it remains unclear when or whether the administration will implement the requirement or which immigrant visa categories would be affected.
The bond amount could vary depending on individual circumstances and could be set above or below $100,000, according to people familiar with the discussions cited by The Wall Street Journal. Officials are considering initially testing the proposal with applicants from a limited number of countries as a pilot program, the newspaper reported.
Under the proposal, applicants would likely receive the money back only after becoming U.S. citizens, a process that generally takes at least five years, according to The Wall Street Journal. The bond would serve as financial security if an immigrant later required public assistance, the outlet reported. Family members may also be allowed to post the bond on behalf of an applicant, per the report.
The proposed green card bond requirement comes after the administration previously sought to impose a $100,000 payment requirement for certain H-1B visa petitions, a policy that was blocked by a federal judge after it was challenged in court.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is pursuing a series of changes to how immigration officials evaluate whether applicants are likely to become a "public charge." Earlier this month, the administration moved to revive a policy allowing immigration officers to consider an applicant's use of certain public benefits, including Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and housing assistance, when deciding some green card applications.
Adam Klein, a former senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official, said the green card bond proposal raises questions about how the government would implement a new financial requirement within the existing immigration system.
"The more interesting question is whether Congress intended that authority to be used this way," Klein told Newsweek. He said immigrant visa applicants already go through a detailed process that includes financial sponsorship requirements, inadmissibility reviews and extensive screening, and that adding a bond would create another layer to that system.
Klein said the administration would also need to consider how bond decisions are made, whether standards are applied consistently across U.S. consulates and whether applicants have a meaningful process to challenge those decisions.
"The biggest policy question is a practical one: What problem is the bond intended to solve? Congress has already established financial sponsorship requirements, public charge provisions, and extensive screening for immigrant visas. If the administration believes those tools are no longer sufficient, I think it will need to clearly explain why and how a bond advances the objectives Congress intended," Klein said.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines