The situation for Green Card holders in the US, particularly among the Indian community, has become increasingly precarious. Reports of detentions, strip searches, and coercive interrogations at airports have sparked widespread fear and uncertainty. The Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration enforcement — rooted in the “America First” ideology — appears to be extending beyond undocumented migrants and targeting lawful permanent residents as well.
The ordeal of Fabian Schmidt, a German Green Card holder, exemplifies the growing unease. Despite having a valid, recently reissued Green Card, Schmidt was detained, violently interrogated, and reportedly mistreated at Logan International Airport in Massachusetts. His mother’s account described how he was stripped naked, doused with ice-cold water, and denied essential medication for anxiety and depression. Such accounts raise serious concerns about the treatment of lawful residents and the expanding authority of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. CBP, however, maintains that such claims are exaggerated, stating that detention procedures are followed only in cases involving legal violations, such as drug charges or breaches of residency terms.
For many elderly Green Card holders — particularly those of Indian origin who frequently travel back to their home country — the situation is especially alarming. Immigration attorneys report that seniors returning from extended stays abroad are increasingly being subjected to secondary inspections. In many cases, they’re pressured to sign Form I-407, which voluntarily relinquishes their Green Card status. Attorneys warn that this tactic exploits their vulnerability, noting that surrendering residency at the border forfeits their legal right to challenge deportation in court.
The timing of this intensified scrutiny is no coincidence. Trump’s broader immigration policies have long sought to redefine who deserves to stay in the US, expanding the definition of “public charge” to make it harder for immigrants to qualify for permanent residency. His administration’s emphasis on stricter residency requirements and enhanced border enforcement appears to have emboldened immigration officers, who now act with more discretion — and, critics argue, less accountability.
Green Card holders face multiple risks under this crackdown. US immigration law permits revocation of lawful permanent resident status for various reasons, including prolonged absences from the country, criminal offenses, or accusations of national security threats. Individuals who remain outside the US for over six months risk being flagged for "abandoning" their residency, while those absent for more than a year without a re-entry permit face automatic revocation. Even minor infractions or misunderstandings at the border could now trigger detention or deportation proceedings.
For Indians, the stakes are particularly high. They make up the second-largest group of Green Card holders in the US, with over a million more stuck in the employment-based green card backlog. Many have built decades-long lives in America, assuming their status was secure — only to now find themselves vulnerable to abrupt revocation and removal. Online discussions reflect this growing anxiety, with many pointing out how the concept of "permanent residency" now feels anything but permanent. Some even draw parallels to India's own immigration policies, citing cases where Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cards were revoked for individuals deemed to support separatist movements.
The line between citizenship and residency has never felt sharper. Green Card holders — once considered just a step away from full citizenship — now face the unsettling reality that their status may depend on the whims of evolving political agendas. For many Indians who pursued the American Dream, the fear is no longer just about securing a future — it’s about ensuring they’re not forced to leave behind the lives they’ve built.
Would you like me to dive into the legal options Green Card holders have if they face such scrutiny? Or perhaps explore whether this trend is likely to continue or change with future administrations?
