logo
Trump's unprecedented immigration crackdown is leaving children terrified and ‘truly alone'

Trump's unprecedented immigration crackdown is leaving children terrified and ‘truly alone'

The Guardian7 days ago

A 10-year-old girl showed up for a routine check-in about her immigration case – and agents cuffed and detained her mother on the spot. A 14-year-old boy was shaken out of bed at 6am when plainclothes officers showed up, unannounced, at his door for what the agents claimed was a 'wellness check'. A 17-year-old girl has been detained for months with her newborn baby due to new restrictions on who can sponsor unaccompanied minor immigrants.
Hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied children have arrived at the US southern border in recent years, seeking refuge. The Trump administration is now targeting them – and their caregivers – for deportation.
In the past few months, the administration has enacted a series of punitive policies to expedite the removal of unaccompanied minors and strip them of legal representation. It has attempted to tear down the basic rights and protections for children under the government's care, while simultaneously issuing new restrictions on who can take custody of them – leaving children to languish in detention. In several troubling cases across the US, advocates say the children are being used as 'bait' to arrest and deport the adults around them.
Taken together, advocates and lawyers say the changes represent a terrifying new strategy in the government's crackdown on immigrants, designed to instill fear and chaos in families.
'The level and intensity of the attacks on children that we're seeing currently is unprecedented in my legal career, which has spanned over 10 years,' said Marion Donovan-Kaloust, director of legal services at the Immigrant Defenders law center (ImmDef). 'It's not just one thing – it's a concentrated attack on children from so many different angles. And it's really shocking to the conscience.'
Children who come to the US without their parents – classified as 'unaccompanied minors' by the government – have always been among the most vulnerable people navigating the US immigration system. Some, fleeing poverty, war, gangs, violence or environmental catastrophes in their home countries, have made the journey alone. Others become separated from their parents or guardians along the way.
During Joe Biden's administration, when record numbers of children were arriving at the southern border, human rights advocates and internal government monitors raised alarms that children were held in overcrowded, jail-like facilities. Now, Donovan-Kaloust said, the Trump administration is attempting to strip these children of basic human rights and legal protections – exposing them to harm and isolating them from loved ones and lawyers who can advocate for their needs.
'Our team works with unaccompanied children every day who are detained, and we're seeing an incredible increase in just the emotional distress that the children are expressing,' said Donovan-Kaloust. 'They're talking about how they're not able to sleep, not able to eat. They're crying a lot, unable to participate in attorney-client meetings.'
In Santa Paula, California, one family experienced the compounding consequences of the administration's new policies.
Maria, the primary caregiver and sponsor for her 10-year-old daughter who had arrived in the US as an unaccompanied minor, didn't have any legal status in the US. But she had submitted all the required documents to show that she was a safe caregiver, provided fingerprints and opened her home up for vetting from officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
On 2 April, she took her daughter in for a routine check-in at a nearby immigration office. Agents arrested her on the spot. 'They arrested her in front of her 10-year-old,' said Primitiva Hernandez, the Executive Director of 805 UndocuFund – a nonprofit that has been helping the family navigate their immigration cases.
Within hours, Maria was transferred to a detention center in Otay Mesa – nearly five hours away. When volunteers from 805 UndocuFund realized what had happened they rushed to help Maria's mother, Lilia, drive over to the immigration office and pick up her granddaughter. Lilia also took custody of Maria's two-year-old son.
The Guardian is not printing the women's last names, or naming the children, in order to protect their safety and privacy.
After Maria's arrest, things took a turn for the worse. Lilia's case for asylum in the US was denied, and she was told to return to Mexico immediately. 'I have to leave, because if I don't leave, they'll come looking for me,' Lilia said in a video message she shared with the Guardian. Her granddaughter was already distraught after seeing her mother cuffed, and whisked away by agents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement knew where she lived – she didn't doubt they'd come knocking.
'I have two children at home. I want to spare them the trauma,' she said. 'My little girl keeps crying because of how they grabbed her mother…I want to stay for my daughter and my grandchildren, but I just can't.'
The children were sent to stay with other family members – but some of those relatives are immigrants too, and they worry they could be targeted for enforcement next.
Advocates say that these sorts of cases exemplify how unaccompanied children are becoming both targets for immigration enforcement – and collateral, as immigration agents move to seek and arrest the adults who care for them.
In a leaked Ice document, agents were instructed to first locate children who have been released by ORR into the care of relatives, and then evaluate whether they can be removed from the country. Officers are advised to seek out 'unaccompanied alien children (UAC)' who could pose potential threats to public safety, and to look for 'UAC with gang or terrorist ties/activities', according to the document. Ice officers were also told to both remove children who may have missed an immigration appointment, and to target sponsors who are not of blood relations.
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has enlisted the FBI and other criminal investigators to conduct 'wellness checks' on children and young people who came to the US without their parents – alarming and unsettling children who have encountered armed agents at their homes.
In New York, plainclothes officers banged on a mother's door at 6.30am one morning in April, asking to speak to her 14-year-old son, who had entered the US as an unaccompanied minor. 'It didn't cross my mind that it was immigration,' she told the Guardian. 'I opened the door and one of them showed me the phone and there was a photo of my son.'
So, she woke him up – and they asked him some questions. Later, they said something about a pending court hearing – but her son didn't have any upcoming hearings because his petition for asylum had been approved.
The Trump administration has said these surprise visits are meant to ensure that the children 'are safe and not being exploited', according to a DHS spokesperson. Trump has falsely accused the previous administration of losing more than 300,000 migrant children, claiming that they are 'slaves, sex slaves or dead'.
Agents have even shown up on school campuses. In April, federal officials with DHS attempted to enter two elementary schools in Los Angeles and asked to speak with five students – but school officials denied them entry. 'What interest should a Homeland Security agent have in a first grader or a second grader? A third grader or a fourth grader, for that matter?' said Alberto Carvalho, then-superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified school district.
Advocates say the visits have done little other than unnerve families. 'Ice is basically using those addresses from the Office of Refugee Resettlement to go door to door and instill terror,' said Ann Garcia, staff attorney at the National Immigration Project.
The government has struggled for years to shelter and care for the thousands of unaccompanied minors who arrive in the US. But the Trump administration is exacerbating the problem by making it exceedingly difficult for relatives to take custody of children in ORR facilities.
Under new policies implemented in January, anyone seeking to sponsor unaccompanied minors will have to meet stringent new requirements for DNA testing and documentation. It has become nearly impossible for undocumented people to take custody of their children.
In a lawsuit challenging the policies, advocacy groups said the 'changes have resulted in children across the country being separated from their loving families, while the government denies their release, unnecessarily prolonging their detention.'
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a 17-year-old girl, referred to as Angelica, who arrived pregnant at the US southern border in November. ORR has refused to release her – and her newborn baby – to her older sister Deisy's custody, because her sister did not have required documentation, including a passport with an attached immigration document.
Some of the other relatives Deisy has approached to sponsor Angelica have been too afraid to provide their information to ORR, fearing that the agency will share information with immigration enforcement agencies.
Another plaintiff, 14-year-old Eduardo, has been held with his 7-year-old brother in a transitional foster care program for months, while his mother Rosa has tried to submit all the documents needed to take custody of them.
'It's heartbreaking,' said Donovan-Kaloust of ImmDef. 'These are children in pain, they don't understand why they can't be with their families. And we can't really explain it to them, because there's not a good justification for what the government's doing.'
Meanwhile, the government has tried to wrench funding for programs that provide legal representation for unaccompanied immigrant children – leaving tens of thousands of infants, toddlers and teenagers to represent themselves in immigration court. After ImmDef and other legal aid non-profits sued to challenge the move, a judge ordered the administration to temporarily restore the funding – saying that denying children legal counsel violated an anti-trafficking law – but the administration has aggressively appealed.
Already, only about 50% of unaccompanied children have any legal representation in immigration court. Now, advocates say toddlers and teens alike are increasingly having to appear before an immigration judge by themselves – with little understanding of what is going on.
Judges, meanwhile, are left to explain to confused kindergarteners and intimidated teens that the government of the US will decide whether they have to leave, or whether they can stay. Children without lawyers are much more likely to be deported.
'These children are truly alone. They have no one to speak for them,' Donovan-Kaloust said.
At the same time, the government has tried to more swiftly remove unaccompanied children from the US, scheduling deportation hearings almost immediately after they are taken into ORR custody – sometimes before they have had a chance to recover from their journeys, she said.
'There's so many things happening right now,' Donovan-Kaloust said. 'So the attacks are layered on top of each other in such a way that everything is priority – at a time when our resources to respond are being systematically curtailed by the administration.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected
Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected

The Independent

time10 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.

Trump's energy dominance agenda could be ravaged by Section 899
Trump's energy dominance agenda could be ravaged by Section 899

Reuters

time15 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Trump's energy dominance agenda could be ravaged by Section 899

LONDON, June 12 - A proposed U.S. tax targeting foreign investors could hurt European energy giants that operate in America's booming oil and gas sector, undermining what President Donald Trump describes as his energy dominance agenda. Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill under review by the Senate includes an additional tax of up to 20% on foreign investors' income, such as dividends and royalties. The tax, known as Section 899, was devised as a pushback against countries that impose what the bill describes as "unfair foreign taxes" on U.S. companies, such as digital services taxes. Section 899 is believed to be targeting companies headquartered in the European Union and Britain, which both have tax systems considered discriminatory by the Trump administration. The provision is a significant threat to London-listed Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab and BP (BP.L), opens new tab as well as France's TotalEnergies ( opens new tab and Spain's Repsol ( opens new tab, which all have sprawling operations in the United States. Trump, who often used the slogan "drill, baby, drill" in his election campaign, has portrayed himself as pro-fossil fuel, vowing on his first day in office to maximise oil and gas production. But if approved, Section 899 could have the opposite effect. BP last year invested more than $6 billion, about 40% of its capital expenditure, in the United States, where its interests include onshore and offshore oil and gas operations, two refineries, thousands of retail fuel stations and a power trading business. The country is also home to more than a third of BP's global workforce of about 90,000 and accounted for roughly 30% of its 2024 revenue of $189 billion and more than a quarter of its $21 billion net profit. Shell, the biggest European oil major, is also a huge investor in the United States, which accounted for 23% of its 2024 revenue of $284 billion. It invests about 30% of its capital expenditure in the country, where it has oil and gas production facilities, a petrochemicals plant, a vast retail network, liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchasing agreements and major trading operations. The United States became increasingly important to Big Oil companies in recent decades thanks to its stable fiscal and regulatory environment while other regions presented a variety of challenges. Take Russia, for example. Its vast oil and gas resources started attracting investments from many companies in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the country is now uninvestible owing to western sanctions that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Similarly, western companies have limited opportunities to invest in the Middle East, where national oil companies dominate. Europe, meanwhile, has limited natural resources and strict environmental regulation. The multinational nature of oil and gas companies means they have plenty of experience dealing with tax uncertainty, but shifting tax policies tend to delay investments. Company boards require long-term confidence to proceed with large, multi-decade capital projects such as oil and gas fields or LNG plants. The industry's confidence in the United States was already shaken under Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who in 2020 revoked a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The Biden administration also paused approvals for new LNG projects in 2024 because of climate concerns. Trump lifted the pause when he entered the White House. According to Section 899, multinational companies could face a new tax on dividends sent overseas and inter-company loans, potentially reducing profit. The Gulf of Mexico accounted for about 10% of Shell's 2024 free cash flow of $40 billion, it said in a presentation. That means that Section 899 could shave $800 million from its free cash flow per year from Gulf of Mexico operations alone. BP made about $1.5 billion in free cash flow in the United States last year, Reuters calculations show. A 20% dividend tax could translate into a $300 million loss in free cash flow. Faced with the worsening fiscal terms, companies could opt to direct funds away from the United States. Though options for deploying capital elsewhere on a similar scale are limited, companies could choose to spread their investments more widely. Such a scenario could be a boon for countries such as Canada, Brazil, Mozambique and Namibia, which have large untapped natural resources. Another option would be for companies to transfer their headquarters and listings to the United States - a costly and politically complicated option. Shell previously contemplated such a move to boost its share value, though it appears to have abandoned the idea. Ultimately, it is very likely that the Senate would push to modify Section 899 or limit its scope, given the potential far-reaching impact on many sectors. But barring a radical change, Section 899 poses a huge risk for European oil and gas giants that are heavily dependent on the United States. Achieving the Trump administration's energy dominance agenda will almost certainly require more foreign investment, not less, so if the CEOs of European energy companies complain loudly enough, the president may well listen to them. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab

What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?

BBC News

time26 minutes ago

  • BBC News

What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?

A multi-billion dollar submarine deal between long-standing allies - Australia, the UK and the US - has come under the spotlight after the Trump administration said it was reviewing how the deal fits in with its heavily-touted "America First" agenda. The Aukus security pact, Australia's biggest ever defence project, is set to play a key part in the country's ability to replace its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet - and, crucially, its military standing in the region. The 30-day review will be led by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus. In a speech last year, he questioned why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it". A US defence spokesperson said the review is about ensuring "this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda".Fears the review may torpedo the deal have been downplayed by the UK and Australia, with both saying the review is a normal process when a new government takes power. What is Aukus? Billed as a trilateral security partnership, the Aukus deal - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) over 30 years - involves two so-called pillars. Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US from 2032 with options to purchase two that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian attack craft will be built in Britain and Australia to a British design, but use technology from all three 2 is about the allies collaborating on their "advanced capabilities". This involves sharing military expertise in areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics and AI. What's the purpose of the deal? At its core, the deal is believed to be about countering China's growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and its role in rising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China none of the allies have directly pointed at China as a reason for the deal, the three countries have spoken about how regional security concerns have "grown significantly" in recent condemned the agreement as "extremely irresponsible" when it was first ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it "seriously undermines regional peace and stability and intensifies the arms race". Who negotiated it? The deal was unveiled in September 2021 by three former leaders: Australia's Scott Morrison, the UK's Boris Johnson and the US's Joe Biden. The UK reviewed the security pact last year after Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government won the general election. What does Australia get out of it? For Australia, the deal represents a major upgrade to its military capabilities. The country is set to become just the second to receive Washington's elite nuclear propulsion technology, after the submarines will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet. They would also mean Australia would be able to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first the deal, sailors from the Royal Australian Navy are due to be sent to US and UK submarine bases to learn how to use the nuclear-powered submarines. What do the UK and US get out of it? From 2027, the pact will allow both the US and UK to base a small number of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western will also create about 7,000 jobs in Britain, with the design and construction of the new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines set to take place in the UK. The benefits for the US are less obvious - but sharing its defence technology could give the nation an opportunity to grow its presence in Asia-Pacific. Arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in a region that is far from their own.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store