Migrant children face fear and lack safety crossing Mexico, study shows
May 5 (Reuters) - Migrant children crossing Mexico in hopes of reaching the United States face alarming levels of violence, exclusion and prolonged uncertainty before, during and after their journey, according to a study published on Monday by Save the Children and Plan International.
The report, based on 155 interviews conducted between November 2024 and February 2025, found that children fleeing danger at home often do not find the safety and international protection to which they are entitled, but rather new forms of vulnerability that continue to deprive them of their rights.
The interviewees were aged between 7 and 16 years old. They came mostly from Mexico, Honduras and Venezuela, but also from Colombia, Guatemala and more distant locations such as Afghanistan and Haiti.
The number of unaccompanied children traveling through Mexico to reach the United States has more than doubled in recent years, increasing from 69,488 in 2019 to 137,275 in 2023, driven by rising violence, deepening poverty and climate change-related displacement.
"Migrant children are not finding safety when they cross the border into Mexico; they're finding more fear, more waiting, and more lost time," said Reena Ghelani, chief executive of Plan International, a UK-based humanitarian and development organization, in a press release.
"No child should find themselves in this situation, especially after enduring such a perilous journey to find safety. They need support now – including protection, access to safe shelter, education and mental health care. We are seeing families so desperate that children are being forced to consider returning to the very places they fled from. That should never be their only option," she said.
Plan International and Save the Children called for an immediate, coordinated response stating that authorities should strengthen child protection systems in border areas, improve access to education and mental health services, and provide adequate housing that prioritizes children's needs.
The recent deportation of three U.S. citizen children — including one with cancer — to Honduras with their mothers has sparked criticism from human rights advocates. They accuse the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump of deporting children without due process, endangering their lives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watch: Trump reacts to news that actors are boycotting his attendance at Kennedy Center
Donald Trump says he is unbothered by actors boycotting his attendance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center Wednesday night (11 June). Several 'Les Mis' cast members are expected to sit out the performance fundraiser after news broke that the president would be in the audience. As Trump walked the red carpet with Melania ahead of the show, a reporter asked him how he felt about the actors' protest. 'I couldn't care less, honestly, I couldn't,' Trump said. 'All I do is run the country well.' The president proceeded to list off some of his perceived accomplishments from his second term.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Fears of tent cities as rough sleeping is decriminalised in end to 200-year-old law
Tent cities could pop up across the UK as rough sleeping is decriminalised, critics of the policy say. Ministers have announced plans to repeal the Vagrancy Act by next spring, meaning it will no longer be an offence to sleep on pavements. But there are fears scrapping the 200-year-old law despite rising numbers of the homeless will mean more people camping on the streets. Announcing the changes, Angela Rayner said she was 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'. The Housing Secretary pledged to increase funding for homelessness services with an extra £233million this financial year to provide alternatives to rough sleeping. She said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' Introduced in 1824 to tackle a homelessness crisis after the Industrial Revolution, the law was designed to punish 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds'. Most parts of the act have been repealed but some remain in force in England and Wales to enable police to move on rough sleepers rather than prosecute them. Homeless charities called the move a 'landmark moment' they had long called for. However, there were concerns that the move could lead to more people sleeping on streets and the creation of 'tent cities'. The charity Shelter estimates there are 326,000 people, including 161,500 children, in England who are homeless, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year. This has caused camps to pop up in several cities, including on Park Lane in central London. Figures published in April showed the total number sleeping rough in the capital – those who spend at least one night on the streets – was 4,427 for the three months to March 2025, which was a near 8 per cent increase from 4,118 for the same quarter last year. The numbers classed as living on the streets had risen by 38 per cent year-on-year to 706 from 511. The Government said 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe – filling the gap left over by removing previous powers'. These will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime and will be brought in through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Ministers said this will ensure organised begging – often by criminal gangs – remains an offence, meaning it is unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg. Ms Rayner's department said spending on homeless services would hit nearly £1billion this financial year. Kevin Hollinrake, Tory communities spokesman, said: 'Labour's approach will result in a pavement free-for-all in our towns and cities. They just don't understand or care how this affects law-abiding local residents and the impact it has on their pride of place.' Chris Philp, the Tory home affairs spokesman, told the Telegraph: 'This move risks turning British cities into a version of San Francisco, which has become overrun by encampments of homeless people.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
In defence of the Trump playbook
The standard explanation for why charges for plastic bags reduced waste is economic. People were reluctant to pay 10p for a bag and so brought their own instead. This is partly true. But it would still be highly effective if the charge for a bag were merely 1p. That's because charging any amount, however trifling, was sufficient to change the implicit assumptions about normal retail behaviour. Previously, if you went into Boots and bought, say, a toothbrush and a tube of Anusol, the default was for the cashier to put them in a new bag – it would have seemed rude not to do so. Suddenly, however, the imposition of a charge meant that shopkeepers had to ask whether you wanted a bag or not. Often the answer was 'no'; you had one already, or, if you were a chap, your clothing was miraculously equipped with things called 'pockets'. There are many ways in which you can achieve large changes in behaviour without imposing large economic penalties. For instance, I contend that you could significantly reduce intergenerational inequality simply by the imposition of a property tax of 0.1 per cent annually on all homes. The relatively small amount raised could be hypothecated to fund child benefit, or to reduce the income tax burden on the young. For the purposes of comparison, the typical property tax levied by those well-known leftists in the State of Texas is slightly over 1.8 per cent. Bear me out. I am borrowing here from the Donald Trump playbook. This is an under-rated approach to legislation where you impose taxes not for their direct effect, but for their symbolic value. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold about the future. You don't necessarily have to do anything massive – you simply raise the possibility you might. Most human behaviour runs on implicit deterrents of this kind. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold Before The Donald, it had become an axiomatic assumption in all businesses that no democratic government of any political stripe would ever deviate from the smug Davos neo-liberal globalist consensus in any shape or form. This artificial certainty meant that for decades you could offshore employment with abandon and treat your native staff fairly shabbily, without fear of any adverse consequences. Today it's different: even if you later reduce many tariffs to near zero and stop randomly abusing Canada, the signal has been sent. I hate to say this, but this approach could work well to solve many other problems. For instance, Britons have been lulled into planning for their future on the assumption that three unwritten rules underpin the tax system. 1) If you actually get up in the morning and do some useful work for which you get paid, you'll be taxed to buggery; 2) If you acquire wealth and then ride the wave of asset-price inflation (i.e. you have more money than you need 'cos you're old), you will be treated very generously; 3) If the asset in question is your own home, you won't be taxed at all, and nor will your good-for-nothing kids when they inherit it all. A large part of the reason why young people cannot afford to buy homes is nothing to do with the use value of a home – it is driven by the as-yet-unshaken belief that residential property has been sanctified as an asset class. It is this belief which possibly accounts for 25 per cent of the price of a home and a similarly large part of oldsters' pathological reluctance to downsize. Residential property is seen as Britain's only tax haven. To unseat this assumption, you don't need to rewrite the whole tax code, or go full Henry George – much as I would personally support this. You just have to make the unthinkable suddenly thinkable.
