By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration has expanded its list of countries whose passport holders must post bonds, up to $15,000, to apply for entry to the United States, including seven new countries, five of which are in Africa. This brings the total number of countries on the list to thirteen, making the visa process unaffordable for many, according to the State Department. This action, which took effect January 1, is part of a broader effort to tighten entry requirements, alongside other measures such as in-person interviews and social media history disclosure. U.S. officials maintain the bonds ensure visa holders comply with visa terms.
Read the original article here
The US government’s decision to expand the list of countries whose citizens must pay a bond of up to $15,000 to apply for a visa is certainly raising eyebrows. Last week, the State Department quietly added seven more nations to the list: Bhutan, Botswana, the Central African Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, and Turkmenistan. This means citizens from these countries, on top of those already included, will now have to put down a significant sum of money, refundable under specific conditions, simply to apply for a US visa.
What’s immediately noticeable is the geographical skew of this list. Of the eleven countries on the bond requirement list, the vast majority, a staggering eleven out of thirteen, are from Africa. The implication is quite clear to many. The US, with its own issues, is effectively adding financial barriers to entry, primarily targeting citizens of African nations. The timing of this, as some point out, feels particularly insensitive given the global stage, perhaps even hinting at the US’s aspirations to hold an event soon.
The specifics of the bond itself raise further questions. While the bond is theoretically refundable if the visa is denied or if the traveler complies with the visa’s terms, some people remain skeptical. The US government’s history in terms of handling finances, especially regarding people of other countries, doesn’t always inspire confidence. There’s a real concern that, despite promises, the return of the bond might become subject to bureaucratic delays or even outright denial, leaving applicants out of pocket and frustrated.
The financial burden this imposes is substantial, especially when considering the economic realities of the affected countries. For many citizens in places like Bhutan, where average annual salaries are under $500, a $15,000 bond represents a life-altering sum. It’s a significant deterrent, potentially discouraging legitimate travelers, students, and workers from even applying. The impact on tourism is a valid concern, as the US might become a less attractive destination compared to countries without these financial hurdles.
The sentiment surrounding this policy is overwhelmingly negative, and the reason is not very hard to see. There is an undercurrent of skepticism and cynicism, with some seeing the bond as a kind of “poll tax,” designed to limit access to the US based on financial means. The phrase “Give me your tired, your poor…” is juxtaposed against a reality of financial gatekeeping, leading some to wonder if the US is more interested in the wealth of potential visitors than their character or needs. This raises questions about the US’s commitment to its own values.
Some even express outright resentment, framing the policy as another exploitative scheme. This is further fueled by distrust of the government’s motives. The fact that the bond is refundable does little to soothe these feelings, with skepticism about the US government’s trustworthiness. The potential for abuse and the creation of an environment where applicants feel vulnerable are real concerns.
This is a policy that raises questions about fairness and equity. The fact that it disproportionately affects citizens of African nations suggests an underlying bias. The concerns around this are widespread. The potential for creating a two-tiered system of entry, where wealth determines access, also clashes with the ideals of a welcoming and inclusive society.
The broader implications of this policy extend beyond individual travelers. If other countries adopt similar measures, it could trigger a downward spiral in global travel. This could damage international relationships, especially with the countries affected by this bond requirement.
This also seems to be a very polarizing policy. Some people see this as a necessary step to combat visa overstays and immigration issues. However, the tone of general public opinion suggests that many people strongly disagree with this approach. This policy, if it stands, may continue to be unpopular.
The future of US travel will be something to watch. The US is walking a thin line. It must balance its security and economic needs with its reputation on the international stage. This bond requirement is a bold move that is certain to have consequences.