Migrant children fleeing abuse could have a harder time getting residency in Florida
A bill in the 2025 legislative session would change how the state handles abuse cases of immigrant children without legal status. (Stock photo)
A bill advancing in the Florida Senate would make it harder for children without legal status who are fleeing abuse in their home countries to become permanent residents.
That's because they could lose the assistance of immigration attorneys and advocates, who say that SB 1626 would stop them from applying for immigration relief on behalf of such children.
While immigration proceedings fall under the federal government's jurisdiction, children without legal status can find a pathway to permanent residency if a state court determines they depend on the state and that they are eligible for special immigrant juvenile status. Courts issue such orders when children have been abused, neglected, or abandoned.
Under Vero Beach Republican Sen. Erin Grall's proposal, courts couldn't declare that children who immigrated alone were abused if the abuse happened before they entered the country or if an abusive parent is not in the United States.
John Barry, a lawyer who represents immigrant children for the Orlando Center for Justice, calls the bill unethical. He testified against it during its first hearing Wednesday in the Senate Children, Families, and Elder Affairs committee, where it received unanimous approval.
One of Barry's clients is a 17-year-old girl who came to Florida on her own after her father impregnated her in Guatemala when she was 12, he told lawmakers. Had the bill been in effect, Barry said, he wouldn't have been able to provide legal representation for the girl.
'So you're saying that a child victimized outside of the United States cannot seek justice in the United States, if they're sitting here in our state, in our court, asking for help,' he told Florida Phoenix following the hearing. 'I think that's negligent and cruel.'
Grall said the changes are necessary to protect unaccompanied minors from ending up in the custody of bad people and to close what she claimed is a loophole allowing criminals and gang members to gain legal status.
'It's also clear that there is some abuse of the special immigrant juvenile visa by those who have other criminal history, gang activity, that type of thing,' Grall said. 'That's what this is really responsive to and to make sure that we are really looking out for the interest of the children that are within the state of Florida.'
Sections of Grall's bill referring to unaccompanied minors — meaning kids in the country without their parents or legal guardians — are based on recommendations from a statewide grand jury that Gov. Ron DeSantis petitioned for in 2022.
During his first term, President Donald Trump touted claims that gang members posed as unaccompanied minors at the border. A recent memo from the second Trump administration directs immigration officials to serve unaccompanied minors with notices to appear in court or be deported, according to Reuters.
The grand jury report also asserted that gang members claimed to be unaccompanied minors — a finding that panel said it based on confidential testimony and on written testimony in 2017 from the acting U.S. Border Patrol chief that in five years, the agency had apprehended 159 minors with confirmed or suspected gang affiliations.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union in California won a lawsuit against the federal government in 2017 over wrongful arrests of immigrant teens accused of being gang members.
Jacksonville immigration attorney Maria Aguila said that while she doesn't file court orders on behalf of unaccompanied minors every week, she's concerned about what would happen to her open cases if the bill passes.
'It seems to me you just want to send them back to the very country that could end up going back into the system of abuse,' Aguila told the Phoenix in a phone interview Thursday.
Aguila emphasized that Congress created the special immigrant juvenile classification in 1990, which has allowed such children to ask courts for immigration relief.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Others working with the Orlando Center for Justice said they worry that parts of the bill would leave immigrant kids facing abuse stuck in a legal limbo.
Under Grall's proposal, only the Florida Department of Children and Families and the 16 community-based care providers to which it outsources child welfare services would be eligible to obtain court orders determining an immigrant kid's eligibility for protected status.
Melissa Lopez Marantes, executive director of the Orlando Center for Justice, said the bill would prevent advocates like her from petitioning the court to help children fix their immigration status.
She first encountered 12-year-old 'Patty' three years ago when the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement placed her in a shelter. (The Phoenix has agreed to use a pseudonym for the child; Marantes used the name when sharing her story with lawmakers to protect the girl's privacy.)
Patty, who lived with her stepfather in Tallahassee, ended up in the shelter after a neighbor took her to the hospital because she suspected the stepfather was assaulting her. The Orlando Center for Justice petitioned the court to determine Patty's eligibility for the special juvenile status. She now lives with a foster family seeking to adopt her.
'I'm hopeful that they will continue to listen and to advocate for some of the amendments that might help keep some of these protections so that children can continue to be protected, whether through DCF, which is wonderful, or if there is an error or there's an issue, through someone stepping in the shoes of DCF,' Lopez Marantes said in an interview with the Phoenix.
The change of a single word under SB 1626 would remove the statutory responsibility for DCF or the community-based care agency to petition the court for protected status on behalf of the immigrant children, the advocates argued — Grall's proposal states that the department and agencies 'may' seek the order instead of stating that they 'shall,' which denotes an obligation.
That difference is concerning to Vanessa McCarthy, an attorney for the Orlando Center for Justice who is in the process of adopting an 8-year-old boy from Guatemala. She told the Phoenix she's had custody of the boy since 2023 but that his lack of permanent legal status has complicated the adoption process. The boy was removed from his father's care after he was found behind a dumpster, malnourished and with bruises, when he was 5 years old, McCarthy said, tearing up.
'Of course, it's not necessarily a fairytale. This child is a traumatized child, so there's a lot of work that needs to go into raising him and making sure he's safe,' McCarthy said. 'It's still a work in progress. He is doing a lot better right now, and he's thriving; he plays soccer, he plays basketball.'
McCarthy said she felt obligated to share her kid's story during the hearing Wednesday.
'I'm an attorney, and I'm having all these issues,' she said. 'Imagine a person who does not have the knowledge of how the legal system works.'
Defending the bill, Stephanie Zimmerman, DCF's deputy director of children's legal services, said advocates could still file a petition for the court to determine that an immigrant child depends on the state, which is different from a court order allowing kids to seek permanent legal status and protecting them from deportation.
To Barry, the bill is designed to discourage nonprofits and religious groups from providing legal aid to immigrant children.
'One of the main things that you have to do to stabilize a child's situation if they're undocumented is you have to get them documented,' Barry said. 'If you don't, they'll be re-victimized. They won't be able to lead a lawful life, and they will end up being vulnerable to being trafficked again or to being abused again.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
DCF wants lawmakers to change the definition of who counts as a legal custodian. SB 1626 would require people who get physical custody of unaccompanied minors to notify DCF and submit a DNA test or documentation proving that the child is a family member.
The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement releases children apprehended at the border to sponsors, usually family members, to continue with asylum claims or other immigration proceedings. Grall's proposals would require those sponsors to become legal guardians under state law, which Zimmerman said would allow for DCF to catch cases of abuse and neglect that now are harder to identify.
'If we can fix that, that very big gap, we will now have the opportunity to protect this vulnerable population and serve the children just as much as the other speakers who have come before you this morning want to do,' Zimmerman told the senators in the committee.
The Trump administration has required fingerprinting of every adult in a household where an unaccompanied minor is placed, according to a Feb. 14 memo.
Between October 2014 and this month, the federal government placed 71,544 minors without legal permanent status with sponsors in Florida, according to data from the office. ORR released more than 1,800 unaccompanied minors to people in the state between last October and February.
The identical House version of the bill has not been heard.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
If Clarence Thomas Resigns Under Trump, Here's Who Might Replace Him
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. There is speculation within the legal community over whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will retire during Donald Trump's presidency, given he is currently 76 years old. Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old, sparking similar speculation about his future as well. According to Supreme Court scholar Adam Feldman, there are six judges in the U.S. who are likely to be considered by President Trump if either justice resigns. Feldman told Newsweek that the possibility of either judge retiring is "unlikely but possible." "Neither are terribly old by Supreme Court standards, both are in their mid-70s, but Thomas will be 80 around the end of Trump's term. Neither have major health issues, at least those that have been made public. If they have confidence that the next president will be a Republican then they have incentive to stay," said Feldman. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas look on during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, January, 20, 2025. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas look on during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, January, 20, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Pool Photo via AP Why It Matters President Trump has already picked three out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. If he had the opportunity to pick two more justices, his presidency and worldview could have a lasting impact on the future of US law long beyond the next three and a half years. However, Justice Barrett has not always ruled in the Trump administration's favor recently, showing that appointing a judge does not guarantee their support from the bench. What To Know Supreme Court seats are lifetime and supposedly apolitical appointments, but justices occasionally retire during the term of a president who aligns with them politically in order to ensure their legacy is retained by the court. For example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to retire during the Obama administration before passing away under Trump, meaning her seat is now occupied by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is significantly more conservative in her interpretation of the law than Ginsburg. "Ginsburg's light on the risk of waiting too long to step down. Since both Thomas and Alito have a lot of sway on the direction of the Court's outcomes, I don't foresee either stepping down unless there is another reason, [for example] health or fear that a Democrat will win the next election, that motivates them," Feldman told Newsweek. According to Feldman, the six judges who are likely to be tapped for consideration are judges Patrick J. Bumatay, Aileen M. Cannon, James C. Ho, Andrew S. Oldham, Neomi J. Rao and Amul R. Thapar. Trump has said in the past that he wants to appoint "more justices like the ones I already picked," so Feldman, creator of the Empirical SCOTUS blog, analyzed decisions and written statements made by the prospective judges and compared them to Trump's picks: Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. He also compared their decisions to those made by Thomas and Alito, examining the language and citations used in their work to determine how it would appeal to the president. According to Feldman's research, Judge Andrew Oldman, who currently is in a Trump-appointed role for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is the most similar to Trump's picks, whereas Judge James Ho is the most similar to Alito and Thomas. Despite ruling in the President's favor several times, including blocking lawmakers from reading the Jack Smith report into Trump's handling of classified documents, and currently being the presiding judge in the case surrounding the second assassination attempt on the president in 2024, Cannon appears to be the furthest away from the Trump appointees and Alito and Thomas. She is one of the most frequent users of "hot-button" words in her writing, including "tyranny," "culture," "elite," and "freedom." These are terms Feldman has singled out as appealing to Trump. However, she does not possess the same qualities as other potential candidates, such as clerking for a Supreme Court judge. Feldman told Newsweek: "My best guess is that Trump would appoint her to a federal appellate court first and nominate another judge (Ho for instance) if there is a SCOTUS vacancy soon although the Cannon likelihood goes up if there is a vacancy towards the end of Trump's term." According to Feldman's metrics, the most likely pick to replace Thomas is Ho, and the most likely pick to replace Alito is Oldham. U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attend inauguration ceremonies in the... U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attend inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. More Chip Somodevilla/Getty images picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images What People Are Saying Attorney Bradley P. Moss told Newsweek in a previous article: "I see absolutely no reason to believe Clarence Thomas will step away from the bench until either he physically is unable to continue with his work, or he is assured that a handpicked successor will be confirmed without incident." Adam Feldman told Newsweek: "With the recent news that Trump is unhappy with Barrett in particular I think he is likely to pick someone who has a more pronounced judicial track record (Barrett's was minimal) that conveys a more conservative bent. That is why my sense is that Judge Ho is the most likely nominee if there is a vacancy. He is about as much a surefire bet to fit the Alito/Thomas paradigm and he clerked for Thomas which adds to his pedigree." Adam Feldman wrote in his Legalytics Substack: "My sense still is that Judge Ho is the obvious pick if Justice Thomas is the next justice to step down and Judge Oldham likely gets the nod if Justice Alito is the first to leave SCOTUS as recent history has shown that presidents may look first to a justice's former clerk to as a replacement if possible." What Happens Next Neither Alito nor Thomas have said they are thinking about retiring. Early in his career, Thomas threatened to quit over his salary. However, that has now been raised. Were either justice to pass away or retire, the president will pick a replacement justice who will be voted on by the Senate.
an hour ago
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
