Mamdani pledges $100 million more for free lawyers for migrants facing deportation

New York City could add $100 million to its program that provides free legal representation for migrants facing deportation, a pledge from Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani that his campaign casts as a cornerstone of his platform. Speaking to MSNBC on The Weekend, Mamdani said that four hundred thousand residents are at risk of deportation and noted that fewer than 200 had access to free lawyers last year. He framed the proposal as part of a broader effort to “Trump-proof” New York City and to keep communities together by ensuring due process for everyone in immigration proceedings. He also said he would seek to increase the Law Department’s headcount by 200, without laying out additional specifics on financing or implementation. Mamdani’s comments align with his campaign’s emphasis on expanding legal resources for migrants amid a broader national and local debate over asylum seekers and deportation procedures.

It has been a consistent feature of the city’s immigration landscape since the migrant influx that began in 2022. Advocates argue that access to counsel helps ensure fair hearings and due process, while opponents contend that expansive legal defense for migrants can strain city finances and affect residents who are not in status. The topic has become particularly acute as New York City continues to grapple with the fiscal pressures of providing shelter, food, and services to asylum seekers, in addition to deportation defenses in court.

The city’s 2026 budget, passed in June, already includes $54.5 million to fight deportation orders in court on the taxpayer’s dime — “more than any other major city in America,” Mayor Eric Adams has said. Mamdani’s proposal would push funding further, a move that would require additional city resources or reallocations. He asserted that the investment would strengthen the city’s legal infrastructure and help keep New Yorkers safe and united, a core element of his campaign platform.

Mamdani’s plan to expand legal defense for migrants sits within his broader campaign frame, described as the “Trump-Proofing NYC” tenet. He has argued that providing robust legal representation can prevent deportations, stabilize immigrant families, and foster a message that New York remains welcoming to those who follow the rules. He did not provide a detailed financing plan or timeline, and his campaign did not respond to The Post’s requests for comment about potential funding sources or operational specifics. The absence of a clear funding mechanism has drawn scrutiny from opponents who warn that city finances are already stretched amid competing needs across schools, sanitation, and public safety.

Critics were swift to push back on the idea. Candice Ackermann, a lawyer who represents highly skilled immigrants, said, “Anybody who is present in the United States without status can be removed.” She added that, in practice, policy shifts across administrations have varied in stringency, but the law remains the guiding standard. The implication, she suggested, is that more expansive protections for some migrants could heighten pressures on others legally pursuing immigration relief.

Council Member Robert Holden (D-Queens) framed the push as a fiscal risk, saying, “New York is in a fiscal crisis, and Mamdani wants to rip another $100 million from taxpayers to bankroll deportation defense, rewarding lawbreaking while seniors, classrooms, sanitation, and public safety go without.” Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa echoed similar concerns, arguing that it is unfair to taxpayers and to those who followed the rules to enter legally, and that enough is enough. The debate over whether additional funding should come from new revenue, reallocation, or savings remains unresolved, and Mamdani’s campaign did not offer clarity on funding sources.

Beyond the political debate, the practical question of resource allocation looms large. The influx of asylum seekers has strained city services for years, prompting questions about how best to balance humanitarian obligations with fiscal realities. The debate also touches on the optics of immigration policy: how a major U.S. city signals its stance on welcoming newcomers while managing the budgetary consequences for residents who rely on city services.

Officials and researchers note that the asylum program fee, including a $600 processing charge introduced in recent years for some asylum programs, adds another layer of complexity to the funding calculus. Critics argue that such fees affect prospective applicants’ ability to pursue relief and may interact with the broader economic and social impacts of the migrant crisis, while supporters say reasonable charges help cover processing costs and deter frivolous claims. The notes accompanying Mamdani’s proposals indicate the tension between treating immigration policy as a matter of public safety and public welfare.

The political dynamic in New York City reflects a national conversation about how cities respond to sudden surges in migration. Mamdani’s pledge arrives as other candidates emphasize different priorities or propose alternative mechanisms for funding legal services, housing, or social support for migrants. How any new investment would be structured, how it would interact with existing city programs, and how it would be phased in over time remains to be seen. For now, the proposal adds another dimension to a heated debate about the city’s priorities as it navigates a prolonged migrant crisis, ongoing budget pressures, and the legal framework that governs deportation proceedings.

As the 2025-26 election cycle unfolds, observers will weigh Mamdani’s commitment against the practicalities of city finances and the broader implications for migrants and long-term residents alike. The outcome could influence how New York and other major cities balance humanitarian obligations with fiscal stewardship in a period of elevated immigration pressures.