Proposal for Government

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Patchwork of promises: A critical analysis of immigration policies for unaccompanied undocumented children in the United States

Robert G. Hasson III1 | Thomas M. Crea1 | Ruth G. McRoy1 | Ân H. Lê2

1 School of Social Work, Boston College,

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

2 Mayor's Office for Immigrant Advancement,

Boston, Massachusetts

Correspondence

Robert G. Hasson III, LICSW, School of Social

Work, Boston College, McGuinn Hall, 140

Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA

02467.

Email: hassonro@bc.edu

Abstract

In 2014, the United States saw a greater than 50% increase in the number of unac-

companied children from Mexico and Central America arriving at the U.S./Mexico

border, and unaccompanied children continue to migrate to the United States in con-

sistent numbers. The dramatic increase of 2014 exposed gaps in policies aimed at

supporting unaccompanied children as they await legal adjudication. This paper begins

with a historic review of immigration policies in the United States aimed at supporting

unaccompanied migrant children. An analytic review is provided of existing immigra-

tion policies in the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee

Resettlement, highlighting the competing paradigms created by missions of security‐

focused policy versus child‐centred policy. A close examination of the values that

influenced policy development in this area is included, along with a discussion of

how social work practice can infuse elements of social justice into immigration policy

reform. Areas for future research to reform immigration policy focused on supporting

unaccompanied undocumented minors are highlighted.

KEYWORDS

child welfare, children's rights, separation and return, unaccompanied minors/asylum‐seeking

children

1 | INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) received

57,496 referrals for support for unaccompanied undocumented chil-

dren (UC). The majority of these children arrived at the U.S./Mexico

border from the Central American “Northern Triangle” of Guatemala,

El Salvador, and Honduras (Administration for Children and Families,

2015). This figure was an increase from 24,000 newly arrived unac-

companied children in 2013, a staggering increase for an already

strained immigration system. The United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees, in a study conducted in 2014 of 404 unaccompanied

children, found 58% of the children interviewed were forcibly

displaced due to actual or potential harm constituting a need for inter-

national protection (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

[UNHCR], 2014). These children, travelling without parents or care-

givers, often used a variety of methods to traverse dangerous areas,

such as jumping trains or hiding in trucks. Upon entering the United

States, these children encounter complex political and legal systems

primarily designed to maintain border security and not designed to

provide children with a child welfare informed response. To serve

these children more effectively and meet their complex needs, a thor-

ough understanding of the policies directed at serving unaccompanied

children and UC is needed.

Research highlights policy implications for unaccompanied chil-

dren in international contexts. For example, Arnold and Ní Raghallaigh

(2017) document improvements in policies and practices for

supporting unaccompanied minors in Ireland. Lidén, Gording Stang,

and Eide (2017) document the tension between existing policies for

UC and political barriers in the context of Norway. In the United King-

dom, unaccompanied children exhibit unique vulnerabilities that

require therapeutic psychosocial support to promote recovery and

community integration (Kohli & Mather, 2003). Although there is a

DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12612

Child & Family Social Work. 2019;24:275–282. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cfs 275

broad body of literature documenting policies to support UC in inter-

national settings, a critical analysis of policies for UC in the United

States is necessary, given the recent increases in arrivals.

2 | THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICIES

Prior to the current unprecedented levels of displacement (UNHCR,

2015), the end of World War II saw one of the most dramatic

increases in forced migration in the history of the world. In the United

States, seeing a pressing need, President Truman signed into law the

Displaced Persons Act in 1948. This was the first act in the United

States to directly address the needs of displaced persons and called

for the United States to accept 415,000 individuals and later an addi-

tional 214,000 when the act was reauthorized (Haines, 2010).

Although the United States responded to the growing needs of

displaced persons in the wake of World War II, the term “refugee”

remained absent from the language of U.S. Government laws and reg-

ulations. The UNHCR defined a “refugee” in 1951 in the Convention

and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees as someone who

… owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for

reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a

particular social group or political opinion, is outside the

country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to

such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection

of that country; or who, not having a nationality and

being outside the country of his former habitual

residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing

to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. (UNHCR, 1951)

Today, the term “refugee” is defined by the U.S. Government as a

person who has “been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on

account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular

social group or political opinion” (United States Citizenship and Immi-

gration Services [USCIS], 2015, para. 1). The criteria for children to

achieve refugee status are the same as adults, and unaccompanied

children in the United States who receive refugee status are referred

to as unaccompanied refugee minors (URM; ORR, 2012a). Refugees

meeting this criteria are afforded legal protections and are supported

by UNHCR in safely returning to their country of origin, integrating

into a local community, or resettling in a third country (United States

Department of State [USDS], n.d.).

Following the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, the next major

piece of U.S. legislation directed to supporting refugees was the

1980 U.S. Refugee Act. Although the United States was a voting mem-

ber in the creation of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the

Status of Refugees, there remained until 1980 no federal legislation

with a title including the word “refugee.” In 1980, President Reagan

signed the U.S. Refugee Act to respond to large numbers of refugees

in Southeast Asia in the wake of the Vietnam War. The U.S. Refugee

Act of 1980 was also the first act that specified federal support for

unaccompanied minors arriving to the United States (United States

Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB], 2013). Speaking of the U.

S. Refugee Act on July 30, 1981, President Ronald Reagan remarked:

Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of

our past and fundamental to our national interest. With

the help of the Congress and the American people, we

will work towards a new and realistic immigration

policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens

while it opens the door of opportunity for those who

seek a new life in America. (Reagan, 1981)

The values that guided the passing of the U.S. Refugee Act of

1981 were grounded in a coherent understanding of the U.S. role in

ensuring peace and security for vulnerable citizens throughout the

world. Although President Reagan made clear the United States

needed control of its borders, he also emphasized the role the United

States should take in leading the effort to support victims of oppres-

sion around the world. Less than a decade from the end of the Viet-

nam War, the values underpinning President Reagan's words and the

enactment of the U.S. Refugee Act were an attempt to recognize

and atone for horrors related to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam

War. Importantly, the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 was the first piece

of legislation to outline specific legal protections afforded to a person

living as a refugee in the United States.

Being a refugee affords individuals certain legal protections, as

outlined by the 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status

of Refugees created by UNHCR. These rights extend to individuals

seeking asylum in the United States, who became party to the 1967

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (UNHCR, n.d.). The pro-

cess for obtaining asylum and achieving refugee status in the United

States is completed either in an affirmative or defensive manner.

The key difference between an affirmative and defensive application

for asylum is that in a defensive application, an individual has been

placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, and the

claim for asylum is made as a defence against deportation (USCIS,

2015). For UC arriving to the United States, the criteria to be granted

asylum and be classified as a refugee is the same as adults. However,

given the diminished capacity for self‐advocacy, children are at an

increased risk of not being granted the support they need under the

U.S. Refugee Act.

Following the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, the next major policy

related to the care of URM in the United States was the beginning

of the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) programme in 1990

(United States Custom and Immigration Services, 2011). SIJS was

designed to support children in the United States who have been

abused or neglected by one or both parents. The SIJS programme

has been amended twice—in 1997 and 2008. The 2008 amendment

was focused on streamlining SIJS as part of the Trafficking Victims

Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA; Daugherty, 2015). Impor-

tantly, SIJS allows children to receive a green card and lawful perma-

nent resident status. However, the process requires children to be

dependent on a juvenile court or in the custody of a child welfare

agency. In addition, if a UC obtains a green card, the programme does

not allow for the child to petition for a green card for his or her sib-

lings, until the unaccompanied child becomes a U.S. citizen.

Although SIJS can provide important immigration relief for UC

with a history of abuse or neglect, evidence suggests that the pro-

gramme is underutilized (Junck, 2012). Up to 2013, only 2,753

276 HASSON III ET AL.

petitions for SIJS were granted, out of a cap of 5,000 petitions

(Daugherty, 2015). In 2014, 5,776 SIJS petitions were received by

the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2014, and of these,

4,606 petitions were approved (USCIS, n.d.). Still, the 5,776

petitions filed is a fraction of the nearly 60,000 UC apprehended at

the U.S./Mexico border, further suggesting the programme may be

underutilized (Daugherty, 2015).

Given some estimates that 58% of UC from the Northern Triangle

meet criteria for international protection (UNHCR, 2014), SIJS is an

important facet of immigration relief for vulnerable and unaccompa-

nied children. However, the focus of SIJS is on UC who cannot reunify

with parents due to abuse or neglect; the programme is of little benefit

to UC striving to reunify with parents in the United States, in the

absence of maltreatment. Although SIJS does provide a pathway for

adjustment of immigration status after entering the United States

(Mandelbaum & Steglich, 2012), important considerations are needed

to expand the criteria of the legislation to meet contemporary immi-

gration and child welfare needs. SIJS serves the best interest of the

child in terms of responding to abuse or neglect but excludes the often

difficult process of family reunification. The gap in services as a result

of the narrow focus of SIJS further contributes to the patchwork of

policies that aim to serve UC entering the United States but fails to

meet their complex needs.

Following SIJS, the next major policy related to the care of URM

in the United States was the 1997 Flores Agreement. After the pas-

sage of the 1980 Refugee Act, the United States witnessed an influx

of immigrants, from 111,363 refugees admitted in 1979 to 207,116

refugees admitted in 1980 (Refugee Processing Center, 2016). At this

time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was primarily

responsible for initial screening and sheltering of UC. Reports of chil-

dren being held in detention style facilities for prolonged periods of

time prompted concern from various advocacy organizations to file

legislation on their behalf (Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services

[LIRS], 2015). Following a decade of legislation, the 1997 Flores

Agreement was created with the INS that stipulated UC were to be

held in the least restrictive environment and released without unnec-

essary delay to a parent, guardian, or licenced child care provider.

After the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in

2002, the Flores Agreement extended to DHS and the care provided

to UC in their custody (LIRS, 2015).

Perhaps the most important feature of the Flores Agreement is

that it outlines policy for UC that is in line with child welfare best prac-

tices, specifically children being held in the least restrictive environ-

ment upon apprehension (Alpert & Meezan, 2012) and their

reunification with an adult caregiver or licenced child care provider

without unnecessary delay (Kelly, 2000). Although these stipulations

were enacted to preserve the best interest of the UC, evidence sug-

gests that DHS struggled with sheltering children in the least restric-

tive environment, following the dramatic increase in apprehensions

of UC at the U.S./Mexico border in 2014 (LIRS, 2015).

Following the Flores Agreement, the next major legislation aimed

at supporting UC was the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of

2000, signed by President George W. Bush (USCCB, 2013). This legis-

lation was created as a response to the increase of sexual trafficking of

adults and children into the United States. Specifically, the U.S.

Department of State (2000) explains the TVPA is “an act to combat

trafficking in persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and invol-

untary servitude, to reauthorize certain Federal programs to prevent

violence against women, and for other purposes.” ORR further

explains that trafficking victims are subjected to force or coercion to

engage in commercial sexual or labour practices. Given the possibility

of children being subjected to human trafficking, theTVPA was pivotal

in supporting UC in the United States (ORR, 2012b).

The TVPA was reauthorized in 2008 as the TVPRA. Changes to

the act included adding different pathways for UC to meet criteria

as refugees in the United States. Specifically, the act outlined a contig-

uous country agreement, where children from Mexico or Canada who

are apprehended at the border are screened and returned to their

country of origin within 48 hr, unless they have a valid claim for asy-

lum or exhibit signs or symptoms of being a victim of human traffick-

ing (USDS, n.d.). This change in policy has led to a dramatic decrease in

the number of UC from Mexico receiving services or support from the

ORR. In the first 8 months of 2014, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)

apprehended 11,577 children; however, only 494 UC were in ORR

custody in the first 7 months of 2014 (Wasem & Morris, 2014).

Beginning in 1948 and continuing until present‐day legislation,

the U.S. response to the needs of refugees has grown to include more

than three million refugees who have resettled in the United States

(USDS, n.d.). The values underlying the creation of U.S. policy to sup-

port refugees include recognition of the needs of vulnerable citizens

who can no longer live safely in their countries of origin. Contempo-

rary U.S. refugee policy is grounded in the belief of extending demo-

cratic values to people living on the margins of society. However, for

UC who migrate to the United States, the current state of immigration

policy is an unforgiving landscape aimed at protecting the safety of

America's borders while largely overlooking the needs of vulnerable

unaccompanied children.

3 | CURRENT IMMIGRATION POLICY FOR URM

Policy for URM is administered from a patchwork of federal govern-

ment agencies with varying mandates and missions, including agencies

within the U.S. DHS and the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (DHHS). Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress

passed the Homeland Security Act in 2002, and in 2003, DHS was

established as a cabinet‐level department of the U.S. Government

(DHS, 2015). The creation of DHS dramatically shifted the values

and priorities of the U.S. Government to a newfound emphasis on

the security of the U.S. border. DHS replaced the INS and held respon-

sibility for all matters related to border security.

U.S. CBP is the branch of DHS primarily responsible for the secu-

rity of the U.S. border. The mission of CBP is “To safeguard America's

borders thereby protecting the public from dangerous people and

materials while enhancing the Nation's global economic competitive-

ness by enabling legitimate trade and travel” (USCBP, 2015, p. 7).

For UC apprehended at the U.S. border, CBP agents are trained to

view unlawful entrance as a potential threat to the United States.

Closer analysis will reveal that the emphasis of threat detection

HASSON III ET AL. 277

overlooks the mental health needs of UC, many of whom fear or have

directly experienced threats of violence in their homeland.

3.1 | Initial apprehension

Upon first arriving at the U.S. border, a UC is referred to by CBP as an

unaccompanied alien child or UAC (USCBP, 2016). The initial screen-

ing of a UC by a CBP agent is focused on determining if the child

exhibits any symptoms of human trafficking or has any claims that

meet criteria for refugee status (LIRS, 2015). UC from noncontiguous

countries initially are held in short‐term detention style facilities and

are transferred from DHS custody to DHHS custody within 72 hr

(LIRS, 2015).

Children from Mexico or Canada are screened by CBP agents

upon their apprehension at the U.S. border, and within 48 hr, a deci-

sion is made regarding their entry into the United States. CBP agents

in the initial screening assess for symptoms of human trafficking or

claims for asylum or refugee status. Specifically, existing policy calls

for DHS to determine within 48 hr of apprehension that

1. the UAC is not a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons;

2. there is no credible evidence that the UAC is at risk of being traf-

ficked if repatriated;

3. the UAC does not have a fear of returning to his or her country

owing to a credible fear of persecution; and

4. the UAC is able to make an independent decision to withdraw the

application for admission to the United States and voluntarily

return to his or her country of nationality or last habitual resi-

dence. (U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2015)

If a UC meets the criteria outlined by theTVPRA, the child is given

the option for voluntary return to their country of origin or a hearing

in an immigration court (LIRS, 2015). Between 2009 and 2014, 95%

of children from Mexico apprehended at the U.S. border were repatri-

ated, or immediately returned to Mexico, by a CBP agent (U.S. GAO,

2015). Strikingly, these children often were without legal representa-

tion and alone in their attempts to learn and understand their legal

rights as UC (LIRS, 2015). Children from Mexico and Canada who do

not meet the criteria outlined by the TVPRA and children who are

from noncontiguous countries are transferred from DHS custody to

DHHS custody within 72 hr.

Recent evidence suggests that the initial phase of assessment

conducted by CBP has not been properly implemented, possibly

compromising the proper care of UC from contiguous countries

apprehended at the U.S. border. The U.S. GAO (2015, Executive Sum-

mary) reports “GAO found that agents made inconsistent screening

decisions, had varying levels of awareness about how they were to

assess certain screening criteria, and did not consistently document

the rationales for their decisions.” In addition, the GAO (2015) found

CBP agents returned approximately 93% of UC from Mexico under

age 14, although CBP policy generally assumes children under age

14 to be unable to make an independent decision regarding immigra-

tion matters. Existing policy calls for CBP agents to transfer UC who

cannot make independent decisions related to immigration matters

to DHHS for further assessment and shelter. This finding suggests

the possibility of UC from Mexico being inappropriately repatriated

to Mexico without a comprehensive assessment regarding their com-

plex needs. For UC who meet criteria under TVPRA, have legitimate

claims for asylum, or are from noncontiguous countries, they are

transferred from CBP to DHHS within 72 hr of apprehension.

3.2 | Transition to the Office of Refugee Resettlement

The ORR is the primary department of DHHS responsible for the care

of UC in the United States. The main goal of ORR is to reunify UC with

their caregivers and, if reunification is not possible, support the UC

with a stable placement and appropriate services for a permanency

plan. Further support for UC not able to reunify with parents is

made with coordinated partnerships with LIRS and the USCCB

(ORR, 2015).

Although DHS and CBP are security focused, viewing apprehen-

sions at the border as potential threats, ORR shifts focus to the best

interests of the UC, with particular concern for their immediate health

and mental health needs. During the initial transition from DHS

custody to ORR custody,

ORR requests background information from the referring

Federal agency to assess whether the unaccompanied

child is a danger to self or others, whether there are any

known medical and/or mental health issues, and

whether other special concerns or needs are known.

ORR uses this information to determine an appropriate

placement for the child or youth in the least restrictive

setting. (ORR, 2018a)

This dramatic shift from threat‐focused assessment to child‐

focused assessment does not occur until the UC transitions from

DHS custody to ORR custody. Custody refers to UC being in the care

of ORR prior to placement with sponsors or reunification with family

members. This initial assessment completed upon custody transfer

includes biographical information, health, mental health, and family

history and is more closely aligned with social work's biopsychosocial

approach to assessment and planning. ORR, after completing the initial

assessment, partners with care providers to provide shelter and ongo-

ing services for the UC, while they remain in ORR custody.

Care providers are “any ORR funded program that is licensed, cer-

tified or accredited by an appropriate State agency to provide residen-

tial care for children, including shelter, group, foster care, staff‐secure,

secure, therapeutic or residential treatment care for children” (ORR,

2017a). In a report exploring initial placements for UC between

2008 and 2010, Byrne and Miller (2012) found that 80% were placed

in shelter settings (n = 11,468). Shelter settings are the lowest level of

care within ORR, have minimal restrictions, and typically are place-

ments for UC without special needs or a history of criminal activity

(Byrne & Miller, 2012). ORR reports that UC spend less than 35 days

in shelters prior to reunifying with family members or transitioning to

a sponsor's care (ORR, 2017b). However, shelter settings are not

aligned with child welfare best practices, as evidenced by the high

numbers of children living in one setting and limits in individualized

278 HASSON III ET AL.

care for UC (LIRS, 2015). In addition to shelter placements, 11% were

placed in transitional foster care (n = 1,563), 4% were placed in secure

care (n = 588), 4% were placed in staff‐secure care (n = 535), and 1%

were placed in a setting classified as “other” (n = 145).

Upon transitioning to a care provider, a UC receives an additional

assessment. ORR policy specifies:

“As a first step, ORR requests background information

from the referring Federal agency to assess whether the

unaccompanied alien child is a danger to self or others,

whether there are any known medical and/or mental

health issues, and whether other special concerns or

needs are known. ORR uses this information to

determine an appropriate placement for the child or

youth in the least restrictive setting” (ORR, 2018a).

ORR further reports that if a child provides information during the

initial intake assessment indicating they were the victim of human

trafficking, ORR refers this information to the ORR Anti‐Trafficking

in Persons Division for further assessment. Current TVPRA policy

allows victims of human trafficking to receive the same benefits

afforded to UC with refugee status (ORR, 2018a).

3.3 | Placement priorities

One goal of ORR is to safely reunify a UC with a parent, caregiver, or

sponsor. While awaiting reunification, ORR shelters UC in the least

restrictive environment possible. The Women's Refugee Commission

(2012) reports UC were in ORR custody for an average of 72 days

prior to 2011. The length of stay in ORR custody decreased to an

average stay of approximately 41 days in 2017 (ORR, 2018b).

Current evidence suggests that ORR shelter settings are not aligned

with child welfare best practices, specifically that ORR shelter settings

have high numbers of children in one setting, limiting the individualized

care UC can receive (LIRS, 2015). ORR (2015, 2018a) reports that place-

ments providing specialized treatment are utilized for children with spe-

cial needs including children under age 13, groups of siblings with one

sibling under age 13, and teens who are pregnant or are parents. For

children placed in secure care settings, TVPRA stipulates the child's

placement in a secure setting must be reviewed after 30 days. In addi-

tion to children in secure settings, a 30‐day review of placement must

occur if children step down from secure settings to a lower level of care

or if ORR staff recommend a secure setting (ORR, 2018a).

Children who remain in ORR custody for 4 months or longer are

referred to as “extended care cases.” Unaccompanied children are

often in extended care due to the absence of a feasible sponsor,

because a legal specialist determines they are eligible for legal immi-

gration relief, or their country of origin is in a state of emergency,

preventing ORR officials from facilitating repatriation. One additional

option for UC in extended care is long‐term foster care. For children

eligible for long‐term foster care, ORR officials attempt to match UC

with homes that can provide appropriate cultural and linguistic sup-

port for the UC (ORR, 2018a).

For children with significant mental health difficulties, ORR may

seek placement in a residential treatment setting. If UC struggle with

behaviour that places themselves or others at risk, and they do not

respond well to outpatient mental health support, they may be placed

in a residential treatment setting for ongoing support. ORR will place a

UC in residential care after a psychiatrist or psychologist provides a

comprehensive assessment (ORR, 2018a).

After a sponsor or long‐term foster care placement is identified,

ORR facilitates a UC's transition out of ORR custody and into a more

permanent placement. The process of transitioning out of ORR cus-

tody is a multistage process including identifying a sponsor and verify-

ing their identity and relationship with the UC, reviewing the sponsor's

application for release from ORR custody, completing background

checks and home studies when appropriate, and planning for post‐

release services for the UC (ORR, 2018a).

Placements outside ORR custody are composed of four catego-

ries: parent/guardian, immediate relative, distant relatives, or no iden-

tified sponsor. ORR prioritizes release placements with parents and

guardians. ORR federal field specialists, case managers, and case coor-

dinators facilitate releases from ORR custody. Federal field specialists

are ORR employees who are responsible for managing a network of

care providers and approving the transfer of UC to care providers

and post‐release placements. Case managers provide direct services

to UC including completing assessments, individual service plans, and

making placement recommendations to ORR federal field specialists.

Case coordinators are responsible for reviewing services for UC and

ensuring all recommendations from case managers are integrated into

the UC's service plan. On the basis of the results of the care assess-

ment and individual service plan, the case coordinator will ensure

post‐release services are established prior to a UC's placement with

a sponsor.

Care providers, in consultation with ORR federal field specialists,

complete a post‐release assessment 30 days after the UC is placed

with a sponsor. The focus of the assessment is to ensure the child is

safe, enrolled in school, and aware of any scheduled court hearings

(ORR, 2018a). Research on outcomes for UC post‐resettlement is in

a nascent stage, but existing research suggests differences in educa-

tion outcomes based on country of origin, with UC from Guatemala

facing more challenges in their educational advancement compared

with children from other countries of origin (Crea et al., 2017). Unac-

companied children who have reunified with their birth families in

the United States also face challenges in adjusting to their new living

situations (Roth & Grace, 2015).

Unaccompanied children attempting to migrate to the United

States are confronted with two policy frameworks with profoundly

different values. Although concerns exist related to the screening

and placement of children in detention style facilities when they are

first apprehended by DHS, ORR policy mandates UC are placed in

the least restrictive setting possible—a policy aligned with child wel-

fare best practices. Yet existing policy for UC in the United States

begins with an initial interface with DHS, a government agency man-

dated to protect the borders of the United States from potential

threats. It is after an initial screening from CBP agents that a UC

receives age appropriate and trauma‐informed care that is necessary

for their health and well‐being. Along with an understanding of the

current policy in place for UC in the United States, there are also pres-

ent‐day gaps and possible future policy remedies to support this vul-

nerable population.

HASSON III ET AL. 279

4 | GAPS AND AREAS FOR GROWTH

When UC arrive at the U.S. border, many have experienced family

separation, witnessing violence, or abuse or neglect. In a 2014 study

exploring the reasons why children arriving at the U.S./Mexico border

left their country of origin, UNHCR interviewed 404 children and

found 41% of the children claimed to fear or already experienced vio-

lence in their home communities due to organized crime associated

with gangs. The highest percentage of exposure to organized crime

violence was found among children from El Salvador (66%) followed

by children from Honduras (44%), children from Mexico (32%), and

children from Guatemala (20%). In addition, UNHCR found 53% of

the children interviewed reported struggling with poverty and meeting

basic needs prior to attempting to arrive to the United States

(UNHCR, 2014). Empirical research also suggests that children living

as refugees are at an increased risk of mental health issues including

post‐traumatic stress (O'Donnell & Roberts, 2015) and depression

(Jabbar & Zaza, 2014).

Current immigration policy for UC in the United States does not

fully meet the complex needs of children experiencing life in the wake

of forced migration. The most glaring gap in U.S. immigration policy is

the absence of trauma‐informed care for UC at the U.S./Mexico bor-

der. Trauma‐informed care is defined as a programme or policy that

1. realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands poten-

tial paths for recovery;

2. recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, families,

staff, and others involved with the system;

3. responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into poli-

cies, procedures, and practices; and

4. seeks to actively resist re‐traumatization. (Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration, 2015)

Since 2002 and the establishment of DHS, the assessment of UC at

the U.S./Mexico border has focused on the threat they may pose while

overlooking their potential, and likely substantial, psychosocial needs.

Current U.S. immigration policy is particularly ill‐suited for chil-

dren attempting to enter the United States from Mexico. The current

authorization of TVPRA allows for U.S. immigration officials to repatri-

ate children from Mexico within 48 hr of their arrival unless they meet

criteria for asylum or exhibit symptoms of human trafficking. CBP

agents, although highly trained to complete thorough assessments to

evaluate risk of terrorism or violence to the United States, may lack

the more nuanced skills of evaluating the mental health status of a

UC. Recent reports from the U.S. GAO (2015) indicating CBP officers

have not properly implemented existing policy in regard to UC from

Mexico further highlight concerns regarding the values of DHS, CBP,

and how policies in these agencies conflict with the needs of UC.

In addition, Human Rights Watch (2016) report that fewer than

1% of UC from the Northern Triangle detained by the Mexican Gov-

ernment receive refugee status or other forms of formal protection,

leading to high rates of deportation. Mexico's enhanced rates of

deportation come in the wake of increased financial support from

the U.S. Government, beginning in 2014, to stem the flow of UC

arriving to the U.S./Mexico border (Human Rights Watch, 2016). This

is further indication of a broader conflict between the missions of CBP

and ORR.

The missions of CBP and ORR are dramatically different, estab-

lishing a competing paradigm that pits national security against the

welfare of UC. A major facet of this competing paradigm is the

absence of mental health screening from CBP agents who complete

initial assessments of UC. Given the complexities of childhood trauma,

it is unclear if current policy that directs how CBP agents assess UC is

adequate in how it addresses, or does not address, the intricacies of

mental health issues UC experience as they arrive at the U.S. border.

Although UC receive more comprehensive biopsychosocial assess-

ments after their transition to ORR custody (ORR, 2018a), children

may benefit from mental health treatment upon apprehension, rather

than after a CBP agent screens them.

4.1 | Changing priorities

Since January 2017, immigration policy priorities have changed

dramatically. On January 25, 2017, an executive order entitled “Border

Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” (Amnesty

International, 2017) resulted in new measures of securing the U.S.

border, often at odds with the best interests of UC. For example, the

order stipulated that asylum seekers apprehended at the U.S. border

could be detained while awaiting court proceedings. This new

measure directly conflicts with the 1997 Flores Agreement, which

outlines care for UC apprehended at the U.S. border, including that

they be placed in the least restrictive environment possible (Amnesty

International, 2017).

Provisions for the care of UC are also intertwined with U.S. poli-

tics concerning reform legislation that would grant immigration status

to individuals who qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

(DACA). DACA is an immigration benefit created by executive action

in 2012 that provides temporary relief from deportation for some

young adults without legal immigration status. DACA is renewable

every 2 years, and eligible recipients needed to have arrived to the

United States prior to age 16, have lived continuously in the United

States since June 15, 2007, and be under age 31 as of June 15,

2012 (USCIS, 2018). However, in 2017, the presidential administration

took the position that any legislative deal benefitting DACA recipients

must include provisions for expedited removal of UC. Such a measure

would further marginalize UC—a separate yet distinctly vulnerable

group of children who have mostly arrived too recently to benefit

from DACA—by infringing on their human right to seek safety in

neighbouring nations through limiting their due process rights when

seeking asylum (Garcia Bochenek, 2017).

The social work code of ethics calls for actions that “expand choice

and opportunity for all people, with special regard for vulnerable, disad-

vantaged, oppressed, and exploited people and groups” (NASW, 2017,

p. 30). UC arriving at the U.S. border, exposed to violence and sepa-

rated from caregivers, are especially vulnerable and easily exploited.

Existing immigration policy is absent of the social justice paradigm

necessary to guide the care and treatment of UC at the border. Social

work, as a profession, is uniquely positioned to highlight this absence

280 HASSON III ET AL.

of social justice and infuse future policy development with appropriate

measures to meet the needs of this marginalized population.

Longitudinal research is needed to evaluate the outcomes of chil-

dren who are provided care in ORR custody and children who repatri-

ate within 48 hr of arriving to the United States. This avenue of

research could profoundly inform the future care of children from

Mexico, who are disproportionality deported from the United States

compared with children from noncontiguous countries. Continued

evaluation of DHS and CBP policies are also needed to explore how

social justice can inform the work of CBP agents.

5 | CONCLUSION

In recent years, the United States has witnessed a dramatic increase in

the number of UC attempting to migrate to the United States.

Research suggests that these children are attempting to escape vio-

lence and poverty in their communities (UNHCR, 2014). For UC

attempting to migrate to the United States and seek asylum, current

immigration policies are a labyrinth of regulations aimed at ensuring

the nation's security while overlooking their complex psychosocial

needs. This shift in priorities is further exacerbated by the policy prior-

ities of the current Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, which

advocates for restricting legal immigration and overlooks the human

rights of UC who migrate to the U.S. border seeking safety, refuge,

and in some circumstances reunification with family.

Social work is a profession dedicated to utilizing the value of

social justice to ensure access to basic needs and opportunities for

all people. Current immigration policy for unaccompanied children is

an imperfect patchwork of promises for a better life. Continued

research and policy development with an emphasis on social justice

can help weave a stronger fabric of support and enhance unaccompa-

nied children's access to basic needs in the United States.

ORCID

Robert G. Hasson III http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8192-4517

Thomas M. Crea http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8092-7353

REFERENCES

Administration for Children and Families (2015). U.S. Department of Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Unaccompanied Children's Program. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/unaccompa- nied_childrens_services_fact_sheet_0.pdf

Alpert, L. T., & Meezan, W. (2012). Moving away from congregate care: One state's path to reform and lessons for the field. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(8), 1519–1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2012.04.003

Amnesty International (2017). Facing walls: USA and Mexico's violations of the rights of asylum seekers. Retrieved from https://www.amnestyusa. org/wp‐content/uploads/2017/06/USA‐Mexico‐Facing‐Walls‐ REPORT‐ENG.pdf.

Arnold, S., & Ní Raghallaigh, M. (2017). Unaccompanied minors in Ireland: Current law, policy and practice. Social Work and Society, 15(1).

Byrne, O., & Miller, E. (2012). The flow of unaccompanied children through the immigration system: A resource for practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Crea, T. M., Hasson, R. G. III, Evans, K., Berger Cardoso, J., & Underwood, U. (2017). Moving forward: Educational outcomes for existing unac- companied refugee minors (URM) foster care in the United States. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31(2), 240–256.

Daugherty, S. (2015). Special immigrant juvenile status: The need to expand relief. Brooklyn Law Review, 80(3), 1087–1121.

Garcia Bochenek, M. (2017, October 10). US proposal would sacrifice Central America's children: Turning children back at US border one condition for keeping dreamers. Retrieved from https://www.hrw. org/news/2017/10/10/us‐proposal‐would‐sacrifice‐central‐americas‐ children.

Haines, D. W. (2010). Safe haven?: A history of refugees in America. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.

Human Rights Watch (2016, March). Closed doors: Mexico's failure to pro- tect Central American refugee and migrant children. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/mexico0316web_ 0.pdf.

Jabbar, S. A., & Zaza, H. I. (2014). Impact of conflict in Syria on Syrian children at the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 184(9‐10), 1507–1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430. 2014.916074

Junck, A. (2012). Special immigrant juvenile status: Relief for neglected, abused, and abandoned undocumented children. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 63(1), 48–62.

Kelly, R. F. (2000). Family preservation and reunification programs in child protection cases: Effectiveness, best practices, and implications for legal representation, judicial practice, and public policy. Family Law Quarterly, 34(3), 359–391.

Kohli, R., & Mather, R. (2003). Promoting psychosocial well‐being in unac- companied asylum seeking young people in the United Kingdom. Child & Family Social Work, 8(3), 201–212.

Lidén, H., Gording Stang, E., & Eide, K. (2017). The gap between legal pro- tection, good intentions and political restrictions. Unaccompanied minors in Norway. Social Work and Society, 15(1), 1–20.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (2015). At the crossroads for unaccompanied migrant children, retrieved from http://lirs.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2015/07/LIRS_RoundtableReport_WEB.pdf.

Mandelbaum, R., & Steglich, E. (2012). Disparate outcomes: The quest for uniform treatment of immigrant children. Family Court Review, 50(4), 606–620.

National Association of Social Workers [NASW] (2017). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from https:// www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ms_ArtLqzeI% 3d&portalid=0.

O'Donnell, D. A., & Roberts, W. C. (2015). Experiences of violence, percep- tions of neighborhood, and psychosocial adjustment among West African refugee youth. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(1), 1–18.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (2012a). Unaccompanied refugee minors. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/unac- companied‐refugee‐minors.

Office of Refugee Resettlement [ORR] (2012b). Fact sheet: Human traf- ficking. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/ resource/fact‐sheet‐human‐trafficking.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (2015, 16 December). About unaccompa- nied refugee minors. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ programs/orr/programs/urm/about.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (2017a, June 29). Unaccompanied alien children frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://www.acf. hhs.gov/orr/unaccompanied‐children‐frequently‐asked‐questions.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (2017b, June 21). Children entering the United States unaccompanied: A guide to terms. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children‐entering‐the‐united‐ states‐unaccompanied‐guide‐to‐terms#Care%20Provider.

HASSON III ET AL. 281

Office of Refugee Resettlement (2018a, July 27). Children entering the United States unaccompanied. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs. gov/programs/orr/resource/children‐entering‐the‐united‐states‐ unaccompanied.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (2018b, June 25). Facts and data. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts‐and‐ data#lengthofstay.

Reagan, R (1981). Statement on United States immigration and refugee policy. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ ws/?pid=44128.

Refugee Processing Center (2016). Arrivals and admissions. Retrieved from http://www.wrapsnet.org/admissions‐and‐arrivals/.

Roth, B., & Grace, B. (2015). Falling through the cracks: The paradox of post‐release services for unaccompanied child migrants. Children and Youth Services Review, 58, 244–252.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2015). Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/nctic/trauma‐interventions.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1951). Con- vention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/en‐us/3b66c2aa10.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2014). Chil- dren on the run: Unaccompanied children leaving Central America and Mexico and the need for international protection. Retrieved from http://www.unhcrwashington.org/sites/default/files/1_UAC_Chil- dren%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2015, June 18). Worldwide displacement hits all‐time high as war and persecution increase, Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2015/6/ 558193896/worldwide‐displacement‐hits‐all‐time‐high‐war‐persecu- tion‐increase.html.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (n.d.). States parties to the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/protect/ PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (2015). Refugees and asylum. Retrieved from http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees‐ asylum.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] (2018, 14 February). Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consider- ation‐deferred‐action‐childhood‐arrivals‐daca.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] (n.d.). Number of I‐360 petitions for special immigrant with a classification of special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) by fiscal year and case status 2010–2014. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/

Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms% 20Data/Adjustment%20of%20Status/I360_performancedata_fy2014.pdf.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB] (2013). The United States unaccompanied refugee minor program: Guiding principles and promising practices. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/about/chil- dren‐and‐migration/unaccompanied‐refugee‐minor‐program/upload/ united‐states‐unaccompanied‐refugee‐minor‐program‐guiding‐princi- ples‐and‐promising‐practices.pdf.

United States Custom and Immigration Services (2011, July 12). History of SIJ status. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/green‐card/special‐ immigrant‐juveniles/history‐sij‐status.

United States Customs and Border Patrol [USCBP] (2015). Vision and strategy 2020: U.S. customs and border patrol strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP‐Vision‐ Strategy‐2020.pdf.

United States Customs and Border Patrol [USCBP] (2016, October 18). Southwest border unaccompanied alien children statistics FY 2016. Retrieved from http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest‐bor- der‐unaccompanied‐children/fy‐2016.

United States Department of Homeland Security [DHS] (2015). Creation of the homeland security department, Retrieved from http://www.dhs. gov/creation‐department‐homeland‐security.

United States Department of State [USDS] (2000, October 28). Victims of trafficking and violence protection act of 2000. Retrieved from http:// www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/61124.htm.

United States Department of State [USDS] (n.d.) Refugee admissions. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/index.htm.

United States Government Accountability Office (2015). Unaccompanied alien children: Actions needed to ensure children receive required care in DHS custody. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/ 671393.pdf.

Wasem, R. E., & Morris, A. (2014). Unaccompanied alien children: Demo- graphics in brief, Congressional Research Service.

Women's Refugee Commission (2012). Forced from home: The lost boys and girls of Central America. Retrieved from https://www. womensrefugeecommission.org/component/zdocs/document?id=844‐ forced‐from‐home‐the‐lost‐boys‐and‐girls‐of‐central‐america.

How to cite this article: Hasson III RG, Crea TM, McRoy RG,

Lê ÂH. Patchwork of promises: A critical analysis of immigra-

tion policies for unaccompanied undocumented children in

the United States. Child & Family Social Work.

2019;24:275–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12612

282 HASSON III ET AL.

Copyright of Child & Family Social Work is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.