AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 8-9, 2011 RESOLUTION

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 8-9, 2011 RESOLUTION RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal and state governments to enact legislation for the protection of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children ( such children ) and U.S. citizen children of noncitizen parents ( U.S. citizen children ) that would require: a) Such children be screened promptly upon apprehension by immigration authorities or placement in foster care, or upon other entry to a child welfare system, to determine whether the child is eligible for immigration relief because he or she is a victim of crime, abuse, neglect, or abandonment or another similar basis under state law; b) Repatriations of such children include formal intercountry child welfare agency involvement and adherence to intercountry protocols designed to address concerns regarding the safety of such children during the repatriation process and the process of returning a child to a stable family environment; and c) U.S. citizen children have full access to their birth certificates, paternity documents, and other vital government records without regard to the immigration status of a parent or guardian. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the revision of federal laws to ensure federal support for training of state and local judges, and for attorneys who work with non-u.s. citizen parents and children of undocumented parents, regarding the intersection of state child welfare laws, immigration laws, applicable international conventions and standards, and intercountry protocols that affect children who are detained, separated from, or removed from their adult caretakers.

REPORT Every child deserves the fundamental rights and protections necessary to grow and thrive. Unaccompanied immigrant children are especially vulnerable to become victims of trafficking, abuse, rape, neglect and abandonment. 1 In 2010, children in immigrant families accounted for nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of all children in the United States, and the vast majority (88 percent) are U.S. citizens. 2 Children of immigrants are more likely than children in native-born families to live in a family with an income below the federal poverty threshold (27.8 percent versus 18.6 percent), and children of immigrants are more than twice as likely as children in native-born families to not be covered by health insurance (16.4 percent versus 8.3 percent). 3 Likewise, children of immigrants are at greater risk of living in food-insecure households than those of native-born families. 4 Prompt Screening of Apprehended Unaccompanied and Undocumented Immigrant Children The term unaccompanied immigrant child (or unaccompanied alien child ) refers to a child who: 1) has no lawful immigration status in the United States; 2) has not attained 18 years of age; and 3) with respect to whom (i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States, or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody. 5 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has assigned initial juvenile responsibilities to the Bureaus of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) and Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ). The Office of Refugee Resettlement ( ORR ), a section of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is assigned responsibility for caring and housing unaccompanied children who are detained by DHS pending resolution of immigration cases enforced by DHS. ORR created a Division of Unaccompanied Children s Services (DUCS) to provide care and services to unaccompanied children. Until late 2008, the United States, as a matter of policy and practice, turned around any unaccompanied Mexican children caught at or near the border with little or no evaluation of the risks they faced upon return to Mexico. 6 In December 2008, Congress passed the William 1 See United States Department of State, Assessment of US Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons (2005), available at http://www.abanet.org/domviol/pdfs/child_trafficking.pdf; see also Eva Klain and Amanda Kloer, Meeting the Legal Needs of Child Trafficking Victims: An Introduction for Children s Attorneys and Advocates (American Bar Association), 2009 at 10; see also Donald J. Hernandez and Wendy D. Cervantes, Children in Immigrant Families: Ensuring Opportunity for Every Child in America, (First Focus and the Foundation for Child Development), March 2011, at 3. 2 Donald J. Hernandez and Wendy D. Cervantes, Children in Immigrant Families: Ensuring Opportunity for Every Child in America, (First Focus and the Foundation for Child Development), March 2011, at 3. 3 Id. 4 Children of Immigrants and Nutrition Supports, (First Focus) March 2011, at 1 Food insecurity refers to the lack of access to enough food to fully meet a person s basic needs at all times due to lack of financial resources. A household that is considered food insecure may not mean that the children in the household are food insecure; thus, households where children are also food insecure are considered to have the lowest levels of food security. Id. at 2. 5 Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, Section 462 Children s Affairs. 6 Appleseed, Children at the Border: The Screening, Protection, and Repatriation of Unaccompanied Mexican Minors 1-3, 13-31 (2011) available at http://www.appleseednetwork.org/linkclick.aspx?fileticket=dj6o_stnnfc%3d&tabid=522. 2

Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act of 2008 (the TVPRA), which mandates that DHS interview every unaccompanied minor in order to make the determination that the child (1) is not a potential victim of trafficking, (2) has no possible claim to asylum, and (3) can voluntarily agree to go back home. 7 After a person who appears to be an unaccompanied child is taken into custody, DHS has assigned the above TVPRA screening duties to its law enforcement agency (CBP) and the children are placed in a CBP detention facility, where CBP determines whether the person is under the age of 18 and unaccompanied. 8 Appleseed recently completed a two year investigation of the implementation of the TVPRA s provisions relating to unaccompanied Mexican minors. Among its findings, Appleseed found that DHS inappropriately assigned the TVPRA screening duties to its law enforcement agency, CBP. 9 The report emphasized that CBP is a law enforcement agency charged with detecting and apprehending undocumented aliens at the border, without child welfare expertise, and ill-equipped to conduct the kind of child-centric interviewing required by the TVPRA. 10 Furthermore, although mandated by the TVPRA, CBP officers have no specialized training to conduct TVPRA interviews. This recommendation builds upon the recent Appleseed report and recommends that all personnel involved in the determination of the status of unaccompanied minors should be 1) qualified to interview children, 2) qualified to identify juvenile victims of trafficking and other forms of abuse, 3) knowledgeable about immigration relief, and 4) able explain available U.S. immigration relief in the child s native language. 11 The above changes are imperative, because the current CBP screening process is currently ineffective in identifying child trafficking victims or other children who are in need of protection due to crime victimization, abuse, neglect, or abandonment. 12 The 1997 Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement (FSA) establishes a minimum standard of care of minor children. This federal court Settlement Agreement recognizes three fundamental principles: 1) minors should be treated with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability; 2) DHS must transfer unaccompanied children to DUCS custody within three to five days of apprehension; 13 and 3) children should be held in the least restrictive setting 7 See William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), H.R. 7311, sections 105-06, 235. 8 See Chad C. Haddal, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Policies and Issues, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2007, RL33896 available at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/rl33896_20070301.pdf (18 January 2008); see also Christopher Nugent, Whose Children Are These? Towards Ensuring the Best Interests and Empowerment of Unaccompanied Alien Children, Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 15 (Spring 2006): 219-235. 9 Appleseed, Children at the Border: The Screening, Protection, and Repatriation of Unaccompanied Mexican Minors 6, 31-53 (2011). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 See Amy Thompson, A Child Alone and Without Papers, (Center for Public Policy Priorities) December 2008; see also Ana Arboleda and Dorien Ediger-Seto, Seeking Protection, Enduring Prosecution: The Treatment and Abuse of Unaccompanied Children in Short Term Immigration Detention, Aug. 2009 at 8-19 (Reporting that CBP apprehended an estimated 90,000 children along the southern United States border in 2007. Most of these 90,000 children were repatriated immediately and without screening because Border Patrol lacks an effective screening mechanism to identify trafficking victims or other children who are in need of protection.). 13 Chad C. Haddal, Congressional Research Service, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Policies and Issues 3, (Jan. 15, 2009). But see Women s Refugee Commission, Halfway Home: Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Custody 2-3 (February 2009) ( Not all unaccompanied children are transferred 3

possible or, when appropriate, released from detention to an individual or entity willing to ensure the child's safety and timely appearance in immigration court. 14 In 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice s Office of the Inspector General ( OIG ) investigated continuing mistreatment of children in immigration custody. Although the then-ins had developed a Juvenile Protocol Manual, the OIG report concluded that there were ongoing deficiencies in the agency s handling of unaccompanied children with potentially serious consequences for the well being of the juvenile, and it made 28 recommendations to ensure compliance with the FSA. 15 However, a 2004 OIG report indicated that many of the FSA recommendations remained open 16 and several more recent reports have determined that FSA standards are not routinely followed by CBP and DHS. Specifically, unaccompanied children: 1) are neither immediately nor appropriately screened to determine whether they are victims of abuse, rape, and trafficking, according to the particular vulnerability needs of unaccompanied children; 2) are detained by CPB for longer than 72 hours; and 3) are not placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their needs. 17 It is crucial that all unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children be promptly screened by independent experts to determine if they have a possible basis for immigration relief; possible forms of relief for child victims of trafficking or other crimes include asylum, the T visa, the Special Immigration Juvenile (SIJ) visa, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) visa, the U visa. 18 The current processing of unaccompanied children insufficiently addresses the particular vulnerability of this population as victims of trafficking, abuse, rape, neglect and abandonment. Federal and state law should be revised in order to account for the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children as an abused and otherwise victimized population, independent experts must be provided timely and appropriate access to question children, in order to determine if the children are victims of trafficking or other crimes, or of abuse, neglect, or abandonment, that could be a basis for immigration relief. Use of Intercountry Protocols for Children s Repatriation In September 2010, the United States Department of State issued its third edition of the Consular Notification and Access Manual. The Manual was designed to help ensure that foreign governments extend appropriate consular services to their nationals in the United States and that to DUCS custody, and many who are transferred are not transferred within 72 hours, as mandated by the Flores Settlement Agreement. ) (emphasis added). 14 Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Reno, Case No CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996). 15 Chad C. Haddal, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Policies and Issues (CRS Report to Congress), Jan. 15, 2009 at 3; see also United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, Report no. I-2001-009, September 29, 2001. 16 Department of Justice Inspector General, Open Inspector General Recommendations Concerning the Former Immigration and Naturalization Service from Unaccompanied Juveniles in INS Custody, Report no. OIG-04-18, (March 2004). 17 Wendy Young and Megan McKenna, The Measure of a Society: The Treatment of Unaccompanied Refugee and Immigrant Children in the United States, 45 Harv. C.R. C.L. L. Rev. 247, 250-52 (2010); see also Halfway Home: Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Custody, (Women s Refugee Commission), Feb 2009, at 35; see also Ana Arboleda and Dorien Ediger-Seto, Seeking Protection, Enduring Prosecution: The Treatment and Abuse of Unaccompanied Children in Short Term Immigration Detention, Aug. 2009 at 8-19. 18 Eva Klain and Amanda Kloer, Meeting the Legal Needs of Child Trafficking Victims: An Introduction for Children s Attorneys and Advocates (American Bar Association), 2009 at 22-25. 4

the United States complies with its legal obligations to such governments. Additionally, the instructions and guidance contained in the Manual focused on consular notification and access that pertain to the appointment of guardians for minors who are noncitizens. 19 Consular assistance is critical in assuring the safe repatriation of immigrant children. The Manual explained that consular notification is required when a guardianship or trusteeship is being considered with respect to a noncitizen who is a minor. Further, this emphasized that consular notification is a mutual obligation that also applies to foreign authorities when they arrest or detain U.S. citizens abroad; therefore, prompt and courteous compliance is required. 20 With the passage of the TVPRA, Congress decided that an unaccompanied minor must stay in the United States for adjudication of any available immigration remedies, unless DHS makes a determination within 48 hours that the child is not a victim or potential victim of trafficking, has no credible fear of persecution, and is willing and able to choose voluntary return to Mexico or Canada. 21 Further, pursuant to the Vienna Convention and other U.S. bilateral agreements, detained minors have the right to be advised promptly that they may contact a consular representative; consular officials have a right to be notified when nationals are detained by U.S. authorities; and at the child s request, consular officials have the right to interview and assist the child who is in custody. 22 However, U.S. officials routinely fail to notify detained children of their right to meet with a consular official, and to notify consular officials, before the repatriation decision is made, that they have a child in their custody. 23 It crucial that children only be repatriated with under the guidelines of the Manual, TVPRA, Vienna Convention, and other formal intercountry protocols to ensure the child is provided safe and secure transportation and services during and after the process of returning a child to a family environment. The ABA Standards for the Custody, Placement and Care; Legal Representation; and Adjudication of Unaccompanied Alien Children in the United States, adopted by the ABA in 2004, hereinafter the 2004 ABA Standards, contained the following proposed rules regarding the repatriation of unaccompanied minor children: 1) whenever a child, after consultation with his attorney and child protection advocate, requests repatriation, the child shall be repatriated promptly through the consulate of his home country, and 2) with respect to any repatriation, the Immigration Enforcement Agency shall ensure repatriation with dignity and safety. This Resolution urges that the above rules be broadened and federal and state law revised in order to U.S. Citizen Children Should not be Barred from Obtaining Vital Documents Because their Parent, Legal Guardian, or Primary Caregiver is a Noncitizen The 14th Amendment provides, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they 19 Consular Notification and Access: Instructions for Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement and Other Officials Regarding Foreign Nationals in the United States and the Rights of Consular Officials to Assist Them (United States Department of State) Sept. 2010, at i. 20 Id. at 2. 21 Appleseed, Children at the Border: The Screening, Protection, and Repatriation of Unaccompanied Mexican Minors 31 (2011). 22 United Nations Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261. 23 Appleseed, Children at the Border: The Screening, Protection, and Repatriation of Unaccompanied Mexican Minors 8 (2011). 5

reside. The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 24 A recent decision highlights the need for improved oversight and protection of the rights of U.S. citizen children born to parents who are noncitizens. In L.P. v. Commissioner, 2011 WL 255807, a United States District Court held that Indiana could not deny paternity documents to a child born in the United States just because the child s father is a noncitizen and does not have a social security number. 25 The commissioner of the Indiana Department of Health had stopped accepting paternity affidavits without a social security number. The result was that children born to a parent without a social security number could not be legitimized though state procedures. In holding the commissioner s denial of paternity rights unconstitutional, the District Court noted that denying parents the ability to establish legal paternity discriminated against their children, denying them access to child support, inheritance, visitation and other benefits. 26 Existing 1995 ABA policy opposes efforts to restrict or deny any child in the United States equal access to public education, health care, foster care, or social services on the basis of the child's citizenship or immigration status or the immigration or citizenship status of the child's parents. The Resolution builds upon this existing ABA policy and emphasizes the importance of the U.S. District Court decision, urging that the rights of a U.S. citizen child to obtain birth records, paternity affidavits, or other vital documents not be infringed upon because the child s parent, legal guardian, or primary caregiver is a noncitizen. Federal Support should be Available for the Education of Judges, Attorneys, And Guardians Including Child Welfare Attorneys And Court-Appointed Attorneys For Parents, Legal Guardians, Or Primary Caregivers, In Juvenile And Family Court As a self-executing treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ( VCCR ) is binding on state and local government authorities without a need for implementing legislation. 27 Article 37(b) of the VCCR requires that whenever a probate court or other legally competent authority considers appointing a guardian or trustee for a foreign national who is a minor, a court official or other appropriate official involved in the guardianship process must inform the nearest consular officers for that national s country without delay. 28 The duty to notify the consular post applies if the child is a lawful permanent resident (holder of a green card), visitor on a temporary 24 U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 1. 25 See L.P. v. Commissioner, 2011 WL 255807 (S.D. Ind. 2011). 26 Id. at 4. 27 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S. 77, (entered into force Mar. 19, 1967) (entered into force for the United States Dec. 24, 1969); see also Pamela Kemp Parker, When a Foreign Child Comes into Care, Ask: Has the Consul Been Notified?, 19 ABA CHILD LAW PRACTICE 177 (2001). 28 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S., 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 (entered into force Mar. 19, 1967) (entered into force for the United States Dec. 24, 1969) ( If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty: to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments. ). See also Department of State Publication, Consular Notification and Access, Instructions for Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement and Other Officials Regarding Foreign Nationals in the United States and the Rights of Consular Officials to Assist Them, Sept. 2010, at 10, available at http://travel.state.gov/pdf/cna/cna_manual_3d_edition.pdf. 6

visa, or an undocumented individual. 29 Many child welfare attorneys and juvenile court judges are unfamiliar with the VCCR and its requirements, as well as its applicability when children are placed in state or county child welfare agency custody. Finally, the 2010 Immigration Benchbook for Juvenile and Family Court Judges noted that it is an increasing occurrence that a noncitizen parent involved in a custody fight will be in removal proceedings facing deportation from the United States. This is due to increased immigration enforcement where, for example, a parent who is apprehended and detained by immigration authorities may have his or her children taken by Child Protective Services because no other person has been legally designated to take care of them. In these cases, it is important for courts not to assume that the lack of participation of a parent in the child custody proceedings is due to the fact that she has already been deported or that there is a lack of interest in pursuing custody of the child(ren). In reality, many parents have not yet been deported, but are merely in the process of deportation. It is also important to note that even though the person has a U.S. citizen child, it does not automatically stop the deportation, although in some cases the existence of a citizen or permanent resident child may be a positive equity if the parent is eligible to apply for some waiver of the deportation. If a noncitizen parent really is about to be removed, hopefully the family will be able to make the difficult decision as to where the children, whether U.S. citizen or not, will grow up: with the removed parent in another country or with the parent who remains in the United States. 30 This Resolution urges revision of federal laws to ensure federal support for the provision of education on connections between child welfare and immigration law, immigration relief for parents of minor children, and on international conventions and standards related to children separated from parents who are in detention or have been deported, to all judges, attorneys, and guardians in state juvenile and family court, including child welfare attorneys and courtappointed attorneys for parents, legal guardians, or primary caregivers. Respectfully submitted, Laura Viviana Farber, Chair Commission on Youth at Risk August 2011 29 Consular Notification and Access, Instructions for Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement and Other Officials Regarding Foreign Nationals in the United States and the Rights of Consular Officials to Assist Them, Department of State Publication, Sept. 2010, at 12-14, available at http://travel.state.gov/pdf/cna/cna_manual_3d_edition.pdf. The Protocol of Cooperation between the Consulate General of Mexico in Los Angeles, California, and the Los Angeles Juvenile Dependency Court is a sample agreement that works to assure the safety of children throughout their return to a family environment. The Protocol of Cooperation between the Consulate General of Mexico in Los Angeles, California, and the Los Angeles Juvenile Dependency Court. 30 Angie Junck, Sally Kinoshita, and Katherine Brady, Immigration Benchbook: For Juvenile and Family Court Judges (Immigrant Legal Resource Center), July 2010, at 67-68. 7

GENERAL INFORMATION FORM Submitting Entity: Commission on Youth at Risk Submitted By: Laura Viviana Farber, Chair, Commission on Youth at Risk 1. Summary of Resolution(s). This Resolution urges prompt screening of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children by independent experts in order to determine if the children are victims of trafficking or other crimes, or abuse, neglect or abandonment that could be a basis for immigration relief. The Resolution also urges that children only be repatriated with formal intercountry child welfare agency support and through use of intercountry protocols, to assure that the child s dignity and safety during and after the process of returning the child to a family environment. The Resolution also urges revision of state and federal law so a child can never be barred from obtaining vital government records because a parent, legal guardian, or primary caregiver is a noncitizen. Finally, the resolution urges federal support of training for judges and attorneys in state juvenile and family court on connections between child welfare law and federal immigration law, as well as on international conventions and standards related to children separated from detained or removed adult caretakers. 2. Approval by Submitting Entity. On May 9, 2011, the Commission on Youth at Risk approved this resolution. 3. Has this or a similar resolution been submitted to the House or Board previously? No. 4. What existing Association policies are relevant to this resolution and how would they be affected by its adoption? There are two existing polices that are related but do not include the provisions in this resolution. In 1995, the House of Delegates adopted policy opposing efforts to restrict or deny any child in the United States the right to public education, health care, foster care, or social services on the basis of the citizenship or immigration status of the child or the child s parent. Additionally, in 2004 the House of Delegates adopted standards regarding the repatriation of unaccompanied minor children. 5. What urgency exists which requires action at this meeting of the House? As of March 2009, an estimated 5.1 million children in the United States live in households with at least one noncitizen parent; 1.1 million of those children were noncitizens. Almost 8,000 unaccompanied children enter the U.S. every year. Families are significantly affected every day by separation due to immigration enforcement including detention and removal proceedings. The Commission members believe this resolution can help guide revision and improvement of current polices and procedures involving the screening of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children, repatriation processes, and access to services and support that directly 8

impact children. Representative Lynn Woolsey introduced a related bill last session: the Humane Enforcement and Legal Protections (HELP) for Separated Children Act, and the Commission believes this Resolution will help to encourage the reintroduction of Representative Woolsey s bill and that it will inform Congress of the importance of supporting that bill. 6. Status of Legislation. (If applicable.) Representative Woolsey s bill, the HELP Separated Children Act, was introduced last session, and we understand it is soon to be re-introduced in this session. 7. Cost to the Association. (Both direct and indirect costs.) None. 8. Disclosure of Interest. (If applicable.) There are no known conflicts of interest with this resolution. 9. Referrals. This resolution is being circulated to Association entities and Affiliated Organizations including: Commission on Immigration Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Criminal Justice Section Commission on Domestic Violence Section of Family Law Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section of International Law Judicial Division Legal Services Division/Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service Council on Racial and Ethnic Justice Commission on Law and National Security Section of Litigation Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants (SCLAID) Young Lawyers Division American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) State and Local Government Law 9

10. Contact Person. (Prior to the meeting.) Howard Davidson Director, ABA Center on Children and the Law Acting Director, Commission on Youth at Risk 740 Fifteenth St., NW Washington, DC 20005-1022 Howard.Davidson@americanbar.org 202-662-1740 (phone) 662-1755 (fax) 11. Contact Person. (Who will present the report to the House) Laura V. Farber Chair, ABA Commission on Youth at Risk Hahn & Hahn LLP, Fl. 9, 301 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91101-1915 (626) 796-9123 (818) 516-8621 (cell) lfarber@hahnlawyers.com 10

1. Summary of the Resolution EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution ( D ) urges prompt screening of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children by independent experts in order to determine if the children are victims of trafficking or other crimes, or of abuse, neglect, or abandonment that could be a basis for immigration relief. The resolution also urges that children only be repatriated with formal intercountry child welfare agency support and through use of intercountry protocols, to assure that the child s dignity and safety during and after the process of returning the child to a family environment. Finally, the resolution urges federal support of training for judges and attorneys in state and local courts on connections between child welfare law and federal immigration law, as well as on international conventions and standards related to children detained or separated or removed from their adult caretakers. 2. Summary of the Issue that the Resolution Addresses Every year nearly 8,000 children enter the United States unaccompanied by parents or other guardians. The current processing of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children does not address the particular vulnerability of these children to trafficking, abuse, rape, neglect, and abandonment. Children under 18 comprise nearly one-half of trafficking victims globally, and in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico approximately 33% of unaccompanied children over age 10 are victims of sexual exploitation. Existing ABA policy does not require or provide guidance on appropriate and prompt screening of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children to determine whether they have been victimized, or require obedience to intercountry protocols to ensure child safety in the transportation and services provided when returning a child to a family environment. ABA policy also currently does not address the denial of services that directly impact unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children because of the immigration status of the parent, legal guardian, or primary caregiver. 3. Please Explain How the Proposed Policy Position will address the issue The ABA already supports the implementation of standards regarding the repatriation of unaccompanied minor children and opposes efforts to restrict or deny any child in the United States the right to public education, health care, foster care, or social services on the basis of the citizenship or immigration status of the child or the child s parent. This recommendation supplements the previous policies by requiring and providing guidance regarding the prompt and appropriate screening of unaccompanied minor children; mandating the use of intercountry protocols to assure safe transportation and services during and after the return of a child to a family environment; and opposing efforts to restrict any and all services and support that directly impact the children because of the immigration status of the child s legal guardian, or primary caregiver. 4. Summary of Minority Views None to date. 11