Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. He has done great work raising serious concerns about how Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been treating these unaccompanied immigrant children. His allegations included the indictment that the agency was coercing at-risk children to waive their civil rights. He characterized the form they handed out as “shockingly coercive.” The court in Washington D.C. has been given this filing, officially titled Unaccompanied Alien Children Processing Pathway Advisal. This last item is a key piece of a decades-old lawsuit that was first filed against the then-nascent Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The UAC Processing Pathway Advisal directly connects unaccompanied immigrant children to legal advice within days of their arrival in the United States. This occurs even as they remain in CBP custody. The material is offered in English and Spanish. For millions of kids who are still learning English, these tests can be incredibly confusing and it’s questionable how well they actually understand the material. The document contains bullet points outlining various warnings and potential consequences for seeking legal recourse or reunification with family members.
Perhaps the most egregious part of the Advisal is the intimidation it poses by policy threatening immigration enforcement against loved ones. It states that a child’s sponsor, typically a family member residing in the United States, “may be arrested, prosecuted and deported” if they do not have legal status. Additionally, it threatens criminal prosecution against any would-be sponsor for the crime of “aiding your illegal entry.” The plan explicitly notes that unaccompanied children in federal government custody that reach their 18th birthday will be released to the ICE. This move will make them subject to deportation.
On November 4, Wyden expressed these concerns in a letter to CBP. This all happened after widespread media coverage in the U.S. forced TFL to acknowledge and defend its policy shift. He doubled down on those concerns in a follow-up letter on December 8, after the Advisal became public.
“While I have no difficulty believing the Trump administration intends to break the law, even at the expense of this vulnerable group, the Advisal blatantly misrepresents the rights unaccompanied children are entitled to in order to coerce them into voluntarily departing,” – Ron Wyden
“To say those things is an understatement,” said Lisa Koop, national director of legal services for the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), who blasted the document. She argued that it provides a “misleading false carrot” to kids. These children cannot be expected to appreciate the long-term impact of their choices.
“Even under the first [Trump administration], we didn’t see this kind of coercion and threats. This is new and different,” – Lisa Koop
Koop emphasized the ways the document undermines children’s understanding of their rights. She noted that the best possible interpretation of its substance would be that it is “the height of generosity and very misleading.”
“We know this administration is laser-focused on deporting children and preventing unaccompanied minors from accessing protection in the United States,” – Lisa Koop
The Advisal presents two primary options for unaccompanied children: seeking a hearing with an immigration judge or choosing to voluntarily return to their home country. It cautions that choosing a hearing will almost always mean longer time in detention.
“If you choose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicate a fear of returning to your country you can expect the following: you will be detained in the custody of the United States Government for a prolonged period of time,” – [Source unspecified]
It ensures that voluntary return cannot result in any administrative sanctions. It makes certain that kids still have opportunities for safe, legal, orderly immigration channels down the road.
“If you choose to voluntarily return to your country, there will be no administrative consequence, and you will still have the opportunity to apply for a visa, through legal means, in the future,” – [Source unspecified]
The context surrounding these developments is significant. Fewer unaccompanied children are arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border this year. Stringent policies that the Trump administration closely implemented are currently restricting access to asylum. These policies are having a disastrous impact on their most vulnerable populations. Advocates say that CBP’s moves are the latest in a dangerous trend toward militarized enforcement tactics targeting unaccompanied children.
Wyden’s letters illustrate a growing concern among lawmakers regarding how these policies affect children fleeing dire circumstances, often seeking safety from violence, trafficking, or neglect.
“Unaccompanied children are a uniquely vulnerable population, arriving in this country without guardians and often fleeing threats of violence, trafficking, abuse, and neglect. CBP’s new policy and the Advisal cynically exploit these vulnerabilities to remove unaccompanied children before they can access essential protections,” – Ron Wyden
After these charges flew, a spokeswoman for CBP rushed to the Advisal’s defense. They highlighted the fact that it walks through, step-by-step, what is expressly allowed under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The spokesperson reiterated that CBP’s responsibility is to enforce the law and protect children. They understood that thousands of unaccompanied minors are at immediate risk of exploitation. All three cited the importance of issuing clear advisals as a way to educate minors about their rights.
“The advisal document provided to unaccompanied children explains options available under the Immigration and Nationality Act on their path forward. CBP’s duty is to follow the law and protect children,” – CBP spokesperson
As these conversations continue, advocates are pushing for increased transparency in how policies harm unaccompanied minors. They contend that such measures should prioritize the safety and well-being of vulnerable children rather than serve as tools for enforcement.