How to sponsor an illegal immigrant child

Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by State

When a child who is not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian is apprehended by immigration authorities, the child is transferred to the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Federal law requires that ORR feed, shelter, and provide medical care for unaccompanied children until it is able to release them to safe settings with sponsors (usually family members), while they await immigration proceedings. These sponsors live in many states.

Sponsors are adults who are suitable to provide for the child’s physical and mental well-being and have not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child. All sponsors must pass a background check. The sponsor must agree to ensure the child’s presence at all future immigration proceedings. They also must agree to ensure the minor reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary departure order.

HHS is engaging with state officials to address concerns they may have about the care or impact of unaccompanied children in their states, while making sure the children are treated humanely and consistent with the law as they go through immigration court proceedings that will determine whether they will be removed and repatriated, or qualify for some form of relief.

HHS has strong policies in place to ensure the privacy and safety of unaccompanied children by maintaining the confidentiality of their personal information. These children may have histories of abuse or may be seeking safety from threats of violence. They may have been trafficked or smuggled. HHS cannot release information about individual children that could compromise the child’s location or identity.

The data in the table below shows state-by-state data of unaccompanied children released to sponsors as of October 31, 2022. ACF will update this data each month. Additional data on unaccompanied children released to sponsors by state is available on the HHS website Visit disclaimer page.

View unaccompanied children released to sponsors by county.

Please note: ORR makes considerable effort to provide precise and timely data to the public, but adjustments occasionally occur following review and reconciliation. The FY2014 release data posted in the chart below were updated on March 13, 2015. The FY2015 release data were updated May 9, 2016. The FY2017 release data were updated May 22, 2018. The FY2018 release data were updated December 3, 2019. Questions may be addressed to ORR directly, at (202) 401-9246.

State	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY15 (Oct. 2014 — Sept. 2015)	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY16 (Oct. 2015 — Sept. 2016)	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY17 (Oct. 2016 — Sept. 2017)*	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY18 (Oct. 2017 — Sept. 2018)*	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY19 (Oct. 2018 — Sept. 2019)	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY20 (Oct. 2019 — Sept. 2020)	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY21 (Oct. 2020 — Sept. 2021)*	Total Number of UC Released to Sponsors in FY22 (Oct. 2022 — Oct. 2022)
Alabama	808	870	598	736	1,111	247	1,946	167
Alaska	2	5	3	0	4	0	4	2
Arizona	167	330	322	258	493	162	631	67
Arkansas	186	309	272	193	359	87	790	85
California	3,629	7,381	6,268	4,675	8,447	2,225	10,773	987
Colorado	248	427	379	313	714	172	1,088	147
Connecticut	206	454	412	332	959	260	1,447	99
Delaware	152	275	178	222	383	107	519	49
DC	201	432	294	138	322	48	307	26
Florida	2,908	5,281	4,059	4,131	7,408	1,523	11,145	1,074
Georgia	1,041	1,735	1,350	1,261	2,558	559	4,358	406
Hawaii	2	4	4	1	16	6	23	17
Idaho	11	39	11	28	62	19	84	14
Illinois	312	519	462	475	863	211	1,712	278
Indiana	240	354	366	394	794	209	1,593	125
Iowa	201	352	277	238	489	119	677	66
Kansas	245	326	289	305	453	95	718	76
Kentucky	274	503	364	370	710	158	1,042	80
Louisiana	480	973	1,043	931	1,966	355	2,851	223
Maine	4	9	11	22	26	11	64	11
Maryland	1,794	3,871	2,957	1,723	4,671	825	5,471	478
Massachusetts	738	1,541	1,077	814	1,756	448	2,549	186
Michigan	132	227	160	136	248	74	451	54
Minnesota	243	318	320	294	624	151	1,002	95
Mississippi	207	300	237	299	482	108	707	56
Missouri	170	261	234	203	431	93	794	103
Montana	2	0	2	3	0	2	28	4
Nebraska	293	486	355	374	563	130	889	53
Nevada	137	283	229	132	324	79	465	59
New Hampshire	14	25	27	20	25	8	67	1
New Jersey	1,462	2,637	2,268	1,877	4,236	921	5,911	524
New Mexico	19	65	46	43	89	34	116	7
New York	2,630	4,985	3,938	2,845	6,367	1,663	8,534	674
North Carolina	844	1,493	1,290	1,110	2,522	610	4,249	380
North Dakota	2	10	3	2	10	1	14	1
Ohio	483	693	584	547	1,091	260	1,675	154
Oklahoma	225	301	267	286	581	120	906	70
Oregon	122	188	170	200	318	71	438	61
Pennsylvania	333	604	501	563	1,229	271	2,103	182
PR	0	0	0	1	3	3	0	0
Rhode Island	185	269	234	235	453	92	520	40
South Carolina	294	562	483	508	1,012	255	1,743	193
South Dakota	61	81	81	96	149	44	233	13
Tennessee	765	1,354	1,066	1,173	2,191	510	4,267	311
Texas	3,272	6,550	5,391	4,136	9,900	2,336	15,341	1,433
Utah	62	126	99	97	179	75	307	51
Vermont	1	1	0	2	6	1	8	1
Virginia	1,694	3,728	2,888	1,650	4,215	770	5,400	450
Washington	283	476	494	435	723	237	1,113	90
West Virginia	12	26	23	23	41	4	60	6
Wisconsin	38	85	94	98	246	62	531	51
Wyoming	6	23	14	15	15	6	22	3
Virgin Islands	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	27,840	52,147	42,497	34,953	72,837	16,837	107,686	9,783

*The FY2015 numbers have been reconciled.

*The FY2017 numbers have been reconciled.

*The FY2018 numbers have been reconciled.

*The FY2021 numbers have been reconciled.

For more information, please read ORR’s reunification policy.

Sponsors and Placement | The Administration for Children and Families

Publication Date: September 10, 2015

Release of Unaccompanied Children to Sponsors in the U.S.

ORR has policies and procedures in place to ensure the care and safety of unaccompanied children (UC) who are apprehended in the United States without immigration status or a parent or legal guardian. These policies require the timely release of children and youth to qualified parents, guardians, relatives or other adults, referred to as “sponsors.”

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 directs that UC must “be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.” The settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, which is binding on the U. S. Government, establishes an order of priority for sponsors with whom children should be placed, except in limited circumstances.

The first preference for placement would be with a parent of the child. If a parent is not available, the preference is for placement with the child’s legal guardian, and then to various adult family members. ORR follows these requirements in making placement decisions.

Additionally, data is updated monthly on the number of unaccompanied children released to sponsors by state and by county across the U.S.

Case Managers and Placement

Case managers are a crucial part of the placement process. They determine whether an individual is an appropriate sponsor, including verifying a potential sponsor’s identity and relationship to a child before releasing a child to a sponsor. They also require case managers to complete an assessment of the child’s past and present family relationships, and relationships to non-related potential sponsors.

Case managers are also required to:

Interview prospective sponsors
Require prospective sponsors to complete a “Authorization for Release of Information”
Conduct background checks on all prospective sponsors
Coordinate fingerprint checks of the FBI database for non-parental sponsors, or for parental sponsors where there is a documented risk to the safety of the child, the child is especially vulnerable, or the case is being referred for a mandatory home study
Coordinate a check of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Central Index System in some cases.

Sponsors without Immigration Status

Since 2005, ORR has received immigration status information about potential sponsors and has a policy in place providing for the release of unaccompanied children (UC) to undocumented sponsors, in appropriate circumstances and subject to certain safeguards.

ORR has published guidance on immigration status and the sponsor placement process for UC. This document provides background and context to the development of this policy, and clarifies how it is implemented.

In this process, immigration status information is requested of sponsors, and may emerge through background checks. Immigration status is not used to disqualify potential sponsors. Instead, it is used to ensure the safety and well-being of the child by making sure that there is an adequate care plan in place that takes all relevant aspects of the sponsor into consideration.

New immigration pact sparks major controversy in the EU

Late last week, the Prime Ministers of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, meeting in Brussels with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, rejected her plan for illegal immigration. The head of the government of Slovakia - another country of the Visegrad group - could not go on a trip, but delegated his powers to the Czech neighbor. The Central European Quartet, which has long become an independent force in the EU, has again blocked the EU's common immigration strategy, which is being actively promoted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

About the new migration pact

The current situation with migration is not as critical as in 2015, when, according to Johansson, "1.8 million people came to Europe illegally, most of them were refugees." Since then, this figure has decreased by more than 10 times, and this year it is only 55,000.

But no one is safe from a repeat of the crisis, especially since the previous system based on the Dublin Accords, which provided for a mandatory quota for the admission of refugees for each EU country, did not work. In particular, the Visegrad Group, whose position has not changed over the past five years, refused to follow this rule.

The European Commission has long begun to prepare a new plan and was going to publish it at the end of September. The tragic events on the Greek island of Lesvos, where three weeks ago a fire in the Moria refugee camp left more than 12 thousand people homeless, accelerated its publication and attracted increased attention to it.

The authors of the new migration pact argue that its main difference is "flexibility". Members of the EU that do not want to host refugees will sponsor the return to their home country of those illegal immigrants who are denied entry. At the same time, the financial contribution of each country will depend on its GDP and population. At the same time, border control will be tightened, the time for consideration of asylum applications will be shortened and the process of deportation of uninvited guests who find themselves in a common European house without an invitation will be accelerated.

Von der Leyen said that such a "mandatory solidarity mechanism" would "restore confidence" within the EU and find a long-term solution to the problem. However, the Visegrad Four fear that the burden on their economy, which has also been hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic, will still be unbearable. If, after a certain time, a country fails to deport an illegal immigrant, then he will remain outside its territory, and the compensation from the EU budget in the amount of €10,000 for this looks clearly insufficient.

For their part, Italy and Greece do not believe that the abolition of the Dublin Regulation, according to which the asylum request is made in the place where the migrant originally arrived, will work. The states of the "first line" fear that in reality the status quo will remain and that they will continue to account for the main immigration flow. In their opinion, the possibility to apply for asylum where the migrant worked or where his relatives live will not solve the problem.

"It looks like it was all done as a distraction. You could say: Dublin is dead, long live Dublin," said migration expert Yves Pascoe from the Institut Jacques Delors in Paris.

On my own terms

After the talks in Brussels, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that the EU leadership "basically keeps the same approach, trying to regulate migration, not to stop migrants." And our position, he stressed, is that "migrants must be stopped." "No one can set foot on the ground of the European Union without permission," Orban said.

Approximately the same expressions were used by his Czech colleague Andrej Babis, and the head of the Polish government, Mateusz Morawiecki, noted that the countries of the Visegrad Group presented a common point of view at the meeting with von der Leyen. While maintaining political correctness, he added that the new 450-page document requires further study and discussion about it can be continued, but the Eastern European states "have their own principles" that they intend to adhere to.

In other words, the Visegrad Four are ready to negotiate with Brussels only on their own terms. Anyway, for now.

"Illiberal democracy"

Recently Viktor Orban also spoke about the principles that one does not want to compromise. In a policy article published in the Magyar Nemzet newspaper, he accused the Western neighbors and the EU leadership of "moral diktat" and attempts to impose their liberal values and their way of life on other countries. However, according to the Hungarian prime minister, "the West has lost its appeal in the eyes of Central Europe", which, in particular, would like to preserve its cultural, family and religious traditions.

"No wonder the Central European countries have chosen a future free of immigration and migration," wrote Orban, who has to face accusations of authoritarianism and nationalism from both the political opposition at home and MEPs.

The reaction of the Hungarian Prime Minister to such attacks is sometimes quite harsh. As recently as Tuesday, Reuters learned that he wrote to von der Leyen calling for the resignation of her deputy, Czech Vera Yurova, who made "offensive remarks" against Hungary. At the end of last week, Yurova, in an interview with the German publication Der Spiegel, said: "Mr. Orban likes to say that he is building an illiberal democracy. I would say that he is building a sick democracy."

The main thesis of Orban's latest article is indeed that "democracy can be illiberal", that is, conservative, and this is already evidence of wider ideological differences with the leaders of leading European countries and the leadership of the EU.

By the way, in contrast to them, Orban came out in support of the current Republican President Donald Trump in the upcoming US elections (a move that is at least unusual for a foreign leader). "We are rooting for the victory of Donald Trump, because we are well acquainted with the foreign policy of American Democrat governments, based on moral imperialism," he said from the pages of Magyar Nemzet.

Consensus or majority?

A new immigration strategy is to be discussed at the very time when some politicians are suggesting that the EU abandon the principle of consensus in making foreign policy decisions. In their opinion, a qualified majority should be sufficient for this. As EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said, "it is better to approve a strong and substantive position by a majority vote than to unanimously support a weak and insignificant one."

The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force in 2009, established an essentially hybrid decision-making system in the European Union, based both on the sovereignty of individual states and the powers of central bodies in Brussels. In areas where pan-European leadership can act on its own, such as regulating markets, the EU appears to be a "strong global player," said Max Bergmann, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, who previously worked at the US State Department. Where decisions are made by consensus, as in foreign policy, the EU constantly stumbles.

"If the EU feels that the hybrid system does not allow it to have a stronger and more coherent foreign policy, then its leaders, especially France and Germany, will start calling for reform like never before," wrote Bergmann in Foreign Policy magazine. .

Perhaps this will happen if no compromise can be found on the "New Pact on Migration and Asylum", which, according to the plans of the European Commission, could come into force from 2023. It still has to be approved by the European Parliament, but the main thing is to reach an agreement between all 27 EU members. The association is currently chaired by Germany, and the Minister of the Interior of this country, Horst Seehofer, expressed the hope that this could be done before the end of December. In any case, Berlin sets itself such a goal.

Ivan Lebedev

Tags:

Czech RepublicHungaryPoland

Five Questions About U.

S. Immigration: A Fact Sheet

US Immigration Five Questions: Fact Sheet

A new year has dawned, bringing with it the end of one presidential era and the beginning of a new one. As outlined in a recent NewBridges blog post, one of the most important things Americans concerned about the welfare of immigrants can do during this transition is learn about the nature of immigration policy in the United States, as well as the life experiences of immigrants and their families. . The purpose of this post is to help readers do just that. An educated perspective is critical in times like these when there is political uncertainty, especially for the most vulnerable people living in this country.

Read on for answers to some frequently asked questions related to immigration. Click the links in the post to read more information on similar topics.

Q: What immigration policy has the Obama administration prioritized?
Answer: One of the most significant pieces of legislation passed by President Obama during his term was the Child Arrival Delayed Action Program, colloquially known as DACA.

Government Executive Order DACA has helped hundreds of thousands of undocumented people who entered the US as children gain access to work and live here legally and avoid deportation with renewable two-year terms. To be eligible for DACA, potential recipients must meet very specific criteria. Some of the requirements include entry into the United States before they are 16 years of age, no legal status as of June 15, 2012, no criminal record, enrollment in a school, a high school diploma or GED, and/or honorably discharged. veteran. Since its inception in 2012, the program has given more than 740,000 eligible people the documentation they need to legally live and work in the United States. While DACA has welcomed people from a specific population, the Obama administration has also imposed strict deportation parameters targeting convicted felons, those deemed a threat to public safety, and those who have recently crossed the border. In 2014, 414,481 illegal immigrants were deported, and data shows that this number has dropped in 2015. However, the number of deportations remains at a record high.

Q: How do most immigrants get to the US?
Answer: Researchers estimate that up to half of illegal immigrants living in the United States entered the country legally and subsequently violated the conditions of legal entry.

According to the Pew Research Center, more than 400,000 people who legally entered the US in 2015 overstayed their visas. Of the 11.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, up to half may have arrived with a legal visa or border crossing card. Many people also enter the country without being checked, bypassing checkpoints, because they do not have a visa allowing them entry or residence. The rhetoric surrounding unauthorized immigration often includes caricatures of people sneaking across the US-Mexico border, thus pushing for the wall to be built. However, in reality, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico is steadily increasing. decline over the past ten years. Research Institute for Migration Policy explains that the purpose of borders has changed over the past century from delimitation of territory to barriers designed to prevent the entry of migrants. However, the evidence is ultimately unclear whether walls are effective in stemming the flow of unauthorized immigration. Increasing border security is clearly preventive, but tends to encourage migrants to find other ways to enter the country, either via other land routes, by sea, or by finding ways to manipulate the visa system.

Q: Do immigrants pay taxes and receive government benefits?
Answer: Immigrants, both authorized and illegal, are eligible for benefits and contribute significantly to state and local taxes.

According to the Institute for Tax and Economic Policy. It is estimated that about $10.6 billion in state and local taxes were accrued from illegal immigrants in 2010. An analysis by the Center for Immigration Research explains that 49percent of legal immigrant families in 2012 were covered by at least one federal benefit program. Households headed by unauthorized immigrants can access government benefits through children born in the US. The same study estimated that 62 percent of these households gained access to at least one benefit program. However, a low level of education is more likely to encourage the use of benefits than legal status. Finally, the work that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does is not paid in tax dollars. All immigration-related procedures administered by this federal agency are paid for through the application and registration fees associated with immigration cases.

Q: Are immigrants employed in the US?
Answer: A large body of evidence suggests that immigrants do not threaten Native American workers; however, these results are nuanced.

This has been a contentious topic, especially in the post-recession years. Many factors influence the relationship between natives and immigrant workers, including age and industry. Immigrants often fill low-skill, low-wage jobs that support the corporations they work for and thereby stimulate the economy. Many immigrants also bring highly specialized skills and an entrepreneurial attitude, even here in the Shenandoah Valley. In general, the attitude of the American public towards this topic is changing and becoming more favorable towards immigrants than in the past. I drink.

Question: How many immigrants become US citizens?
Answer: Nearly half of the foreign population living in the United States is made up of naturalized citizens. This is about 6 percent of the total population of the country. In 2014, 653,456 legal permanent residents were naturalized as citizens. Following national trends, naturalization has increased significantly over the past few decades. According to the Migration Policy Institute, "Since 2010, the average annual number of naturalizations has increased to 701,000." To be naturalized, people must have resided legally in the US for five years as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or three years if the LPR is through marriage, demonstrate proficiency in English, take a test in US history and government, and pass an examination biographical information.