What Green Card Holders Should Know in Preparing to Travel Outside the U.S.
The Trump administration's crackdown on immigration has fueled anxiety at airports, border crossings and other U.S. ports of entry, with visa holders and tourists concerned that they may be detained or deported. Even some green card holders have faced increased scrutiny.
A green card, officially known as a Permanent Resident Card, is a legal authorization to live and work in the United States permanently. In the past, green card holders traveled in and out of the country with less worry than other foreign nationals, but the administration's restrictive approach at the borders — and stronger enforcement against green card holders who have committed crimes — has changed all that.
Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and law professor in New York, said that citizens and green card holders alike have contacted him since President Trump took office to inquire about his services if they get stopped at the border. Another immigration lawyer, Brad Bernstein, has taken to TikTok to debunk concerns and offer advice to travelers with green cards.
Here's what to know about the rights a green card holder is entitled to and how to travel on a green card.
What Rights Do Green Card Holders Have?
Lawful permanent residents, who are often referred to as 'green card holders,' are allowed to live and work in the United States, receive Social Security, Medicare and college financial aid, and serve in the military, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
They may also apply for citizenship after five years of legal permanent residency, or three years if they marry a U.S. citizen. Residents must be in the United States for at least 913 days in that five-year period to maintain eligibility for citizenship, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security.
The department estimates that there were 12.8 million green card holders living in the United States on Jan. 1, 2024, an increase of 70,000 from the year before.
Green card holders must carry their cards with them at all times.
What Travel Restrictions Apply to Green Card Holders?
Any green card holder who commits a crime, ranging from speeding to a more serious offense, can be denied entry to the United States or deported, but the government usually hasn't targeted those people unless they have committed major crimes, according to legal experts. Green card holders also must provide consistent information across travel forms. For example, the answers to questions on a green card form must match the answers provided in the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, the application required for most European travelers to the United States.
While green card holders can spend up to 365 consecutive days outside the United States, any duration longer than six months can 'raise eyebrows,' Mr. Wildes said. Spending more than six months outside the country can also reset the number of years required to be eligible to apply for citizenship.
Some green card holders who have been out of the country for an extended period say they have recently been pressured to give up their status by Customs and Border Protection agents, according to Mr. Bernstein. He said that some of his clients who are green card holders have been presented with forms used to abandon their lawful permanent resident status.
Customs and Border Protection, Mr. Bernstein said, 'has taken on treating lawful permanent residents in a similar vein that they treat visitors and students, which is that they are going to be the judge and jury.'
According to a spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection, the agency presents those forms only when a permanent resident arrives from a foreign country at a port of entry and voluntarily expresses a desire to surrender their green card.
One of Mr. Bernstein's clients, a green card holder who lives in New York with his family, said he was detained in March at a Florida airport after returning from a three-month business trip to oversee a real estate project in Jamaica, where he lived before moving to the United States. The man, who asked not to be identified over concerns about his residency, said he was pulled aside for secondary inspection, where agents expressed their doubts about whether he really lived in the United States.
At one point, he said, a form used to abandon legal permanent residence was presented, and he was told he should relinquish his green card and instead apply for a work permit to enter the United States. He refused, was admitted into the country and is now back in New York. He described the experience as disheartening, saying it felt like he wasn't welcome anymore.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about the incident.
Another green card holder, Cliona Ward, 54, who has lived in Santa Cruz, Calif., since she was 12 years old, was detained at San Francisco International Airport on April 21 when she returned from a seven-day trip to Dublin. Ms. Ward had two felony convictions in 2007 and 2008 related to drug possession from a brief period of addiction she experienced, according to her sister, Orla Holladay.
According to Ms. Holladay, those convictions were expunged — meaning the conviction would be essentially removed from the criminal record — after Ms. Ward completed a rehabilitation program, and she has maintained her sobriety for almost 20 years. Her sister described her as a taxpayer who is in the country legally and is a part of the community.
Erin Hall, Ms. Ward's lawyer, said that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles such cases, has not provided any criminal records. The agency declined to comment.
Ms. Ward has been in detention for a week and has no date set for a hearing on her case.
What Travel Restrictions Has the United States Enacted?
As part of the Trump administration's aggressive immigration agenda, border checkpoints have enacted what the White House refers to as 'advanced vetting.' The measures, which include detaining and deporting tourists, have led allied countries, like Germany, to update travel advisories for their citizens about traveling to the United States
The Department of Homeland Security in April announced that it would screen immigrants' social media for evidence of antisemitism, which it said would be grounds for 'denying immigration benefit requests.' The screen looks for evidence of 'endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism,' according to the statement.
The measure applies to those applying for green cards, foreign students and other immigrants 'affiliated with educational institutions linked to antisemitic activity.' In recent months, the Trump administration has had a number of Pro-Palestinian protesters — some green card holders, others with student visas — arrested and detained on account of their on-campus activity.
What Precautions Should Green Card Holders Take?
Mr. Wildes said that any green card holder looking to travel outside of the United States for six months or longer should apply for a re-entry permit, which allows lawful permanent residents to re-enter after being abroad for up to two years. The permit serves as proof that the green card holder does not intend to abandon their legal status. If the permit doesn't arrive before departure from the United States, Mr. Wildes recommended traveling with the receipt of the application.
Mr. Wildes also recommended that green card holders who travel frequently apply for Global Entry, a C.B.P. program that expedites the clearance process when entering the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
35 minutes ago
- New York Times
Seven African Countries Are on Trump's Travel Ban List. Why?
What did the nations of Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, the Republic of Congo and Sudan have in common, until they were all put on President Trump's travel ban list Wednesday night? They are all African countries. But beyond that, not much links them. They are scattered across the continent, spanning desert and tropical forest. Some are democracies (in name at least) and some are under military rule, some have a heavy terrorist presence and others do not. Announcing the travel ban on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that his administration considered such factors as whether a country 'has a significant terrorist presence within its territory, its visa-overstay rate, and its cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals.' Chad, Somalia and Sudan have struggled with persistent terrorist threats. But so have Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso — three African countries run by military juntas that took power in coups — and none of them are on the list. Visitors from Chad, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo overstay U.S. visas at very high rates — 49, 33 and 30 percent in 2023, according to Homeland Security Department data. But far more Nigerians and Ghanaians overstay their visas in absolute terms. The number of Ghanaian and Nigerian visa holders overstaying is in the thousands, while for the banned countries it is in the hundreds. Not all of the countries who overstay the most are on the list, either — Djibouti's rate is 23 percent and Liberia's 19 percent, according to the data, but neither is banned. Somalia, whose overstay rate is 11 percent, is on the list. Bright Simons, a policy analyst at IMANI Ghana, a think tank based in Accra, said that the Trump administration appeared to be 'punishing whole countries for the sins of a minority.' There was very little a government could do to prevent its citizens from overstaying their visas, Mr. Simons added, suggesting that a more effective approach might be to emulate other countries that ask foreign visitors to post bonds when they apply for visas, to reduce the incentive to overstay. This would 'ensure that personal responsibility is not jettisoned in favor of national stigma,' he said.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is the end of the dreaded airport queue in sight? Not quite
Last week, British passengers arriving at Tenerife South Airport reported 'inhumane' conditions after queueing for more than two hours without access to water or loos. 'We couldn't move our arms, we could barely breathe, and people were sweating. Some parents lifted their children onto their shoulders to stop them from suffocating,' one passenger told local media. It's a frightening image, and one that has become more common at European airports since British air passengers became 'third-country nationals' after Brexit. This effectively gives us the same rights as arrivals from, say, Venezuela, banishing us to the often snail-paced 'All Passports' queue to get a stamp on arrival. When flying home we must also pass through border control to get a second exit stamp before proceeding to the gate. This can lead to scenarios where passengers are kettled at the gates with no access to refreshments if a flight is delayed, and no way to go back to the main terminal area. Change, it seems, is on the horizon. The Labour party has struck a deal with the EU to allow British passport holders to pass through e-gates, and the introduction of the Entry/Exit System (EES) in October will automate identity checks and remove the need for manual passport stamps. So will these images of British passengers snaking out of arrival halls at European airports soon be a thing of the past? Yes, but it may take a while. When it first rolls out, EES will require British (and all non-EU) travellers to provide fingerprints and facial images when entering or exiting the Schengen Area. This process has been much-delayed, not least because implementing it requires a continent-wide tech overhaul. And as we all know, airport IT systems, often operated by third-party firms and alongside multiple other systems, have a tendency to buckle at inopportune moments. If the new tech doesn't create hold-ups, the data capture process could. Pressing thumbs on sensors and having a photograph taken may sound like a simple process, but how many times have you seen somebody push their passport into the e-gate sensor the wrong way up? Such are the fears of hold-ups that airports are planning 'safety valve' procedures, where the requirement to capture everyone's data will be temporarily waived if a checkpoint gets too busy. On e-gates, I have found this new Labour/EU e-gates 'agreement' to be somewhat smoke and mirrors. The wording in the relevant document says that 'British passengers will be able to use more e-gates in Europe'. But this does not necessarily mean we will be able to use fast-track EU e-gates. Instead, it might be that we remain in the naughty ('All Passports') queue that happens to have an e-gate at the end of it. This will ultimately be up for individual countries and airports to decide. I will allow you to decide whether we are likely to receive sympathy on this matter, or not. Perhaps I'm being overly negative. Let's say that the EES roll-out isn't as clunky as feared, and that through some miracle the majority of European airports do kindly allow Britons to use their fast-track e-gates. Surely the airport queues will have simmered down by next summer? Maybe. But we will still face the additional border check when flying home (albeit with biometrics rather than a passport stamp). And hold-ups like those seen in Tenerife are as much to do with poor scheduling as anything else. I checked the arrivals board on Tuesday June 2, and at 10.40am there were scheduled flights from Manchester (Jet2), Liverpool (Jet2), East Midlands (Tui) and Bournemouth (Ryanair). Ten minutes later, flights from Birmingham and Leeds (both Jet2) were scheduled to land, plus another from Paris. That's seven 180-or-so capacity flights touching onto tarmac, one after the other, in the space of ten minutes, at a single-runway, single-terminal airport. Even the sleekest, AI-powered biometric arrivals system would struggle to process all those passengers without the formation of a queue. There are some changes to the airport process that we can feel optimistic about. Soon, we'll be able to take greater quantities of liquids through security at all UK airports. A shake-up of UK flight paths promises to reduce air traffic delays before the end of the decade. And yes, all this new tech will eventually reduce friction at borders. But when you are stuck in a packed arrivals hall with a child on your shoulders and no access to water, you will be praying for progress now – not at some ambiguous point in the future. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reviewing Trump's second travel ban and national security concerns
President Donald Trump on Wednesday brought back a piece of his first administration, announcing a travel ban on citizens from 12 countries and restrictions on people from seven others. Trump signed a proclamation that banned individuals from those countries from entering the United States come Monday at 12:01 a.m. The ban will affect Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The seven restricted countries include Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In his announcement, Trump cited national security concerns. He said in a video that the recent attack in Boulder, Colorado, underscored the 'extreme dangers' posed by people who overstay their visas. The suspect in Colorado is from Egypt, which is not one of the countries included in Trump's new travel ban. 'In the 21st Century, we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign visa overstayers from dangerous places all over the world, and thanks to Biden's open door policies, today, there are millions and millions of these illegals who should not be in our country,' Trump said. 'In my first term, my powerful travel restrictions were one of our most successful policies and they were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil.' He said more countries could be added to the list if threats arise later on. Trump signed an executive order on Inauguration Day that signaled he had plans for a new travel ban. The order instructed the State Department to identify countries with inadequate vetting and screening processes. A draft list was reviewed by The New York Times in March, but it showed the administration was considering restrictions for many more countries than the ones included in Wednesday's proclamation. In his video, Trump said he directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review 'high-risk regions' and to make recommendations for restrictions. The State Department examined national security threats, countries that had a 'large-scale presence' of terrorists, a failure to cooperate for visa security, difficulty verifying traveler identity and countries that had high rates of visa overstays, Trump said. 'Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States,' he said. This policy is similar to the previous travel ban under Trump's first administration, as it seeks to curb migration from a specific country. The original list included Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. This time, Trump is also likely to face less legal challenges, experts told the Times, likely due to the delay in the ban beginning and the variation of countries impacted. The original travel ban, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban,' was sharply criticized, but the Trump administration insisted it was in place for national security reasons and not on anti-Muslim grounds. In his proclamation Wednesday, Trump said he must protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its citizens. While Trump cited the recent attack in Boulder, deemed by authorities to be an antisemitic terror attack, Egypt, the suspect's home country, is not on the list. The current list of impacted countries could change in the future, if governments work with the U.S., the announcement said. He said he is committed to engaging with the impacted countries that are willing to cooperate and improve 'information-sharing and identify-management procedures,' as well as address terrorism and public safety risks. 'Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts. Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts,' the proclamation said. 'But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations.' While Trump did not entirely outline his reasoning for all of the bans, citing 'serious damage to the national security' of the U.S. if he released it, he shared a bit about why the restrictions were going into effect. For example, Afghanistan's ban cited the Taliban as a designated global terrorist group and its lack of 'competent or cooperative central authority' for issuing passports and security screening. Burma is on the list because it has a high rate of visa overstays in the U.S., and Haiti poses national security concerns to the U.S. because of its visa overstay rate and criminal network establishment. The inclusion of Afghanistan on the banned list angered supporters who have worked to resettle people, the AP reported. However, the proclamation makes certain exceptions, including for Afghan Special Immigrant Visas, which are given to individuals who have worked closely with the U.S. during the war. Other exceptions include adoptions, visas for ethnic and religious minorities being persecuted in Iran, athletes or members of athletic teams traveling for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events, and immediate family immigrant visas, among others.
