In early October, the Trump administration announced a new immigration policy offering $2,500 to unaccompanied migrant children who agree to voluntarily return to their home countries. The administration described the plan as a way to reduce the growing number of unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody and reunite children with their families.
But immigration advocates and legal experts warn that the policy could pressure vulnerable youth into giving up their right to asylum.
“Safe voluntary departure requires legal counsel—not government marketing or what amounts to cash bribes for kids,” said Melissa Adamson, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law.
At the same time, federal funding cuts have hit programs that help minors find attorneys. These programs once provided crucial grants to recruit attorneys, but reductions have left many children navigating complex immigration hearings alone.
“The US government is violating legal protections for immigrant children and forcing them to fight their immigration cases alone,” said Roxana Avila-Cimpeanu, deputy director of the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project.
Without proper legal support, they may feel pressured to accept the cash offer and return home, even if it means facing the same dangers they escaped.
“Unaccompanied children seeking safety in the United States deserve our protection rather than being coerced into agreeing to return back to the very conditions that placed their lives and safety at risk,” Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, said in a statement. “Unaccompanied children should never be removed from the United States without a full and fair process to determine if they are eligible for U.S. protection.”
Just a few weeks ago, Judge Rudolph Contreras blocked an effort from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to move unaccompanied minors to adult detention facilities once they turn 18, ruling that it violated existing child protection standards. Critics said the policy would have intensified pressure on teenagers to accept deportation grants rather than risk detention.
These actions are not the first time the administration has implemented measures that have encroached on the rights of immigrants.
During Trump’s first term, he implemented the policy “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), requiring people escaping violence and persecution in their home countries to stay in Mexico while U.S. officials reviewed their asylum claims.
While waiting in Mexico, many women struggled to meet their basic needs, a situation that continued under the Biden administration. “The report highlighted that…in Mexico…they were sometimes forced to sleep on the street and left with limited access to showers and bathrooms. A number of women struggle to access the most basic services while waiting in Mexico, including medical care.”
In the months following its implementation, “numerous people were returned to Mexico after one of these interviews, even after they presented officers with evidence of kidnapping, extortion…and other harms they experienced there.”
“It’s clear that they’re testing out several policies of dubious legality—or clearly illegal in the case of the policy referenced in our lawsuit [offering $2,500 to children who voluntarily return to their home countries]—and seeing what sticks,” Michelle Lapointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council, said in an interview.
Supporters of the administration’s plan see it differently.
Vice President J.D. Vance stated that, “…illegal immigrants, by virtue of being in the United States, are entitled to some due process…but the amount of process that is due, how you enforce those legislative standards, and how you actually bring them to bear is very much an open question.”
He is against courts ruling against immigration restriction policies, even if they are of questionable legality, as he states that, “You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for. That’s where we are right now.”
Still, beyond its intent, the policy of voluntary departure raises broader questions about the direction of U.S. immigration policy. Is the system designed to offer refuge, or simply to send people back?
The $2,500 payment might look like relief to some and coercion to others. But as the nation debates whether to lean toward compassion or restriction, it’s worth remembering that each data point represents a child: with a name, a family, and a future that depends on the nation’s choices.
