When Government “Protection” Becomes Family Separation
Under a new directive quietly implemented in July, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has fundamentally changed how families torn apart by immigration can reunite. Parents seeking to reclaim their children who entered the U.S. alone now face mandatory in-person interviews where federal agents may arrest them—leaving children indefinitely trapped in government custody.
This policy shift exposes the harsh reality behind bureaucratic language about “child safety” and “proper vetting.” While officials claim enhanced screening protects vulnerable minors, the practical effect creates new barriers that keep families separated and children institutionalized for months longer than necessary.
The New Reality: When “Help” Becomes Harm
The July 9 directive from the Office of Refugee Resettlement marks a dramatic departure from previous practice. Previously, parents could submit identity documents online to begin the reunification process. Now they must appear in person for “identification verification,” with the memo explicitly stating that “federal law enforcement agencies may be present to meet their own mission objectives, which may include interviewing sponsors.”
This bureaucratic language masks a troubling reality: ICE agents are using family reunification as an immigration enforcement opportunity.
“The change provides U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement a ‘built-in opportunity’ to arrest parents,” explains Neha Desai, managing director of human rights at the National Center for Youth Law. This isn’t theoretical—it’s already happening.
Children Caught in the Crossfire
Mary Miller Flowers, director of policy and legislative affairs for the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, describes a heartbreaking case that illustrates the policy’s impact: immigration officers arrested the father of a child under age 12 who showed up for what he believed was a routine identification check.
“As a result, mom is terrified of coming forward. And so, this child is stuck,” Miller Flowers explained to the Associated Press.
This scenario repeats across the country, where parents face an impossible choice: risk arrest to reunite with their children, or leave them in government custody indefinitely.
The Ripple Effects of Fear-Based Policy
Extended Separations Harm Children
The data reveals the policy’s devastating impact. Children now spend an average of 171 days in government custody—nearly six months—compared to just 37 days when the current administration took office in January. While down from April’s peak of 217 days, this represents a more than four-fold increase in family separation time.
Currently, approximately 2,000 unaccompanied children remain in government custody as of July, according to official statistics.
A System Designed to Discourage Reunification
The new interview requirement joins other policy changes creating a gauntlet of obstacles for families:
- Mandatory fingerprinting for sponsors and all adults in the household
- DNA testing requirements
- Home visits by immigration officers
- Proof of income or identification documents only available to those with legal status
“We know of sponsors who are deeply, deeply fearful because of this interview, but some are still willing to go forward given their determination to get their children out of custody,” Desai noted.
The Questionable Justification
Information Already Available
The Office of Refugee Resettlement claims the interviews ensure proper sponsor vetting, but experts question this rationale. As Desai points out, the interviews are “unlikely to produce information authorities don’t already have.”
The existing vetting process already includes comprehensive background checks and home studies conducted by ORR staff—not immigration enforcement agents. These assessments evaluate potential sponsors’ ability to provide safe, stable homes for children.
Missing Safeguards in Practice
While ORR states parents can decline ICE interviews without affecting reunification decisions, advocates report significant gaps in implementation. Desai knows of situations where sponsors weren’t properly notified of their right to refuse and only learned they could decline after pushing back.
When Children Become Enforcement Targets
Perhaps most disturbing, the administration has also begun interviewing children directly while they remain in government shelters. This separate July 2 directive allows ICE agents to question minors with as little as one hour’s notice to their legal advocates.
“If we don’t understand what the interview is for or where the information is going, are we really consenting to this process?” Miller Flowers asks, highlighting the fundamental ethical questions raised by interrogating children in custody.
Jennifer Podkul, chief of global policy at Kids in Need of Defense, notes that officers often lack essential skills for these encounters: “language skills, trauma-informed interviewing techniques and knowledge of the reunification process.”
The Human Cost of Bureaucratic Barriers
Trauma Compounded
Children entering the U.S. alone have already experienced significant trauma—whether fleeing violence, poverty, or persecution. The current system compounds this harm by prolonging separation from family members who could provide stability and healing.
Extended institutionalization, even in well-run facilities, cannot replace the emotional support and cultural connection children receive from family members.
Families in Limbo
The policy creates a cruel paradox: the government simultaneously claims to prioritize child welfare while implementing measures that actively prevent family reunification. Parents who followed legal processes to seek reunification now find themselves potential enforcement targets.
A Call for Accountability and Reform
Immediate Actions Needed
- End the use of reunification processes for immigration enforcement
- Restore online document submission for identity verification
- Eliminate mandatory ICE interviews that serve no child protection purpose
- Provide clear, advance notice of all interview rights and procedures
- Establish independent oversight of the reunification process
Broader Systemic Changes
The current situation reflects deeper problems with how we approach immigration and child welfare. Effective reform requires:
- Separating child protection from immigration enforcement functions
- Prioritizing family unity as a fundamental principle
- Investing in community-based alternatives to institutional care
- Ensuring adequate legal representation for both children and sponsors
Moving Forward: Choosing Compassion Over Enforcement
The question facing policymakers and voters is straightforward: Do we want a system that reunites families or one that uses children as leverage for immigration enforcement?
The current approach fails both goals. It doesn’t effectively screen for child safety—existing background checks and home studies already serve that purpose. Instead, it creates new obstacles that keep families separated and children institutionalized.
As Shaina Aber of the Acacia Center for Justice observes, “The agency’s mission has been conflated and entangled. It seems ORR’s mission has been somewhat compromised in that they are now doing more on the immigration enforcement side, and they’re not an immigration enforcement entity.”
Real child protection means facilitating safe family reunification, not creating bureaucratic mazes that trap children in government custody while their parents live in fear.
The choice is clear: we can build systems that support families or ones that tear them apart. The children waiting in custody—and their parents afraid to come forward—deserve better than the current approach that prioritizes enforcement over their wellbeing.
What You Can Do:Â Contact your representatives and demand they investigate this policy’s impact on children and families. Support organizations like the National Center for Youth Law and Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights working to protect vulnerable children. Stay informed about local immigration enforcement policies that affect families in your community.
