The Consequences of Immigration: American Children Pay the Price of Their Parents.

By Liz Medina-Gonzalez

In a Washington, D.C. neighborhood, a seventeen-year-old arrives home from school and greets his parents who have spent the entire day hiding inside.^[1] His parents sit him down and ask him to decide where he will go if they are deported.^[2] The son must choose between going to college without his parents or starting over in a foreign country.^[3]When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) surrounded their neighborhood, the family started hiding inside and stopped working because of the fear their only child would be separated from them.^[4] Their child is a senior in high school, and he dreams of attending college after graduation.^[5] The only option is asking his best friend’s mother to become his temporary guardian in case his parents are deported.^[6] Without hesitation, this American mother accepts because he has been friends with her son since pre-K.^[7]

As immigration policy continues to focus on detention and deportation, many American families and children will be faced with similar choices. Since January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reported more than 2.5 million undocumented immigrants left the United States and an estimated 605,000 deportations have occurred under the Trump Administration.^[8]  According to DHS, U.S. citizen children are not being deported because parents are given the choice to leave their children with a temporary guardian or be removed with children.^[9] However, this choice leads to “de facto deportation” because “the deportation of the parents effectively causes the deportation of an American citizen.”^[10]

This paper contends that immigration enforcement fails to address the detrimental effects on American citizens by framing family separation and de facto deportation as a parental choice. Part A discusses the Court’s view on de facto deportation and the recognition of hardship imposed on American children.^[11] Part B analyzes the doctrine of Birthright Citizenship and its application to children of undocumented parents.^[12] Part C explains the consequences of American children who decide to stay without their parents.^[13] Part D sets forth the barriers American children must overcome when integrating into a new country and the difficulty for many returning to America.^[14]

A.      History of De Facto Deportation.

Some federal courts have held that the government may deport undocumented parents without violating the constitutional rights of their American children.^[15] Thus, Courts have reasoned that “the deportation of a parent does not infringe on the citizen child’s rights because they were still free to exercise those rights at a later time.”^[16]

Notably, the attorney general has discretion to cancel removal orders in cases where the deportation of the parent “would result in the extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s . . . child, who is a citizen of the United States.”^[17] Indeed, some courts have granted cancellation of removal orders against parents whose undocumented children would suffer an extreme hardship.^[18] As such, courts should allow parents of American children to remain in the country, as the constitutional interests of American children remaining in the country with their parents is more compelling than in stay orders permitted for undocumented children.^[19]

Coleman v. U.S., exemplifies the erroneous failure of some courts to protect the rights of citizen children.^[20] In Coleman, the court rejected the argument that the deportation of an undocumented parent violates the constitutional rights of a citizen child.^[21] The court emphasized that the parents broke the law, and Congress did not grant children the right to “confer immigration benefits on his parents.”^[22] The court recognized that the American child will suffer hardship as a result of his parent’s pending removal order.^[23] However, the injury was not of “constitutional magnitude” because a “citizen child remains free to exercise his right to live in the United States.”^[24] Thus, the court recognized  the hardship that may be imposed on children when executing removal orders against their parents; however, the court failed to cancel the parent’s removal order.

De facto deportation describes situations where citizens emigrate in order to accompany deported persons, commonly family members. As noted above, when a non-citizen parent is subject to deportation, a tragic choice must be made between “self-deportation” of a citizen child to maintain family unit, or family separation. The reality of de facto deportation demonstrates the substantial hardship imposed on citizen children and family unity when parents are deported. As immigration crackdowns continue to grow, there has been a refusal to fully recognize the burdensome effects on citizen children. The refusal to recognize the burdensome effects of de facto deportation on citizen children is inconsistent with other spheres of the law dealing with children and family unity.

B. The Doctrine of “Jus Soli” or Birthright Citizenship.

The United States is one of the few countries that automatically grants citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants.^[25] An individual can become a U.S. citizen through (1) birth or jus soli (2) blood and (3) naturalization.^[26]The recognition of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment’s^[27] interpretation of jus soli^[28] mirrors legislation that specifies an individual who is born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen.^[29] Importantly, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,  the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of birthright citizenship by conferring citizenship to a child born in the United States to permanent residents legally in the country.^[30] Wong Kim Ark was born in California and lived in the United States until he was about twenty-one.^[31] At this point, he decided to visit China.^[32] However, while attempting to return to the U.S., Wong Kim Ark was denied entry into the U.S. because of the claim that  he was not a citizen.^[33] Based on these facts, the Court ultimately interpreted that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on children born in this U.S. regardless of parental legal status or legal presence in the country.^[34]Thus, the Court affirmed the district court order to give Wong Kim Ark citizenship.^[35]

Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to all children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.^[36] In response, three district courts in Maryland,^[37] Massachusetts,^[38] and Washington^[39] issued nationwide injunctions to prohibit the executive order from being enforced.^[40] The Supreme Court  granted the Trump Administration’s application for partial stays of the preliminary injunctions “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”^[41] In response, the Trump administration petitioned for writ of certiorari in  Barbara v. Trump and Trump v. Washington presenting the question of whether “the Fourteenth Amendment… ‘extend[s] citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”^[42] The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 1, 2026, to determine the constitutionality of birthright citizenship as applied to children of undocumented immigrants.^[43]

In 2020, “[a]pproximately 5 million children in the United States currently live[d] with at least one parent who lacks lawful status” and nearly 86% of children in immigrant families were born in the United States.^[44] These statistics highlight the constitutional burden that birthright citizenship imposes on citizen children whose parents are deported.^[45]Courts have held that parents cannot hide behind their children to obtain residency because it is the parents’ fault the children may face deportation.^[46] However, “American citizen[s] [have] a right to reside wherever [they] [wish], whether in the United States or abroad . . .”^[47] The decision parents must make before deportation “deprive[s] the citizen child of their United States citizenship… [and] discriminates against children who have illegal alien parents.”^[48]Consequently, such decision forces citizen children to either “live as an underclass deprived of their parents, or to grow up in lesser circumstances outside of their country of citizenship with the right to return as adults.”^[49] Thus, this leads  to family-separation and substantial hardship on citizen children and parental rights.^[50]

The separation of families without finding that the parent is unfit or poses a danger has been found to likely violate the Fifth Amendment substantive due process right to family integrity.^[51] The Supreme Court has long recognized parental rights as an unenumerated fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.^[52] Under this framework, the Court has affirmed that parents possess the fundamental right to direct the upbringing,^[53]education,^[54] and care of their children.^[55] Despite recognition of parental rights, courts “have decided the sole caretaker and lifeline of that child has no right to stay in the country for the sake of the child.”^[56] Although the Court has established that the Immigration and Naturalization Act addresses the legislative concern with “the problem of keeping families of United States citizens and immigrants united.”^[57] The Board of Immigration Appeals held that if undocumented parents of an American citizen child are deported “it is the parent’s decision whether to take the minor child along or to leave the child in this country.”^[58] As a result, American citizen children and their parents face two choices: choose de facto deportation from the country they are born in or choose to be raised by their parents.”^[59]

According to a 2025 ICE directive, ICE officers are required to “accommodate” the parent or legal guardian’s effort to arrange childcare before contacting local child welfare or law enforcement agency to become temporary guardians of the child[ren].”^[60] However, the new directive requires ICE to contact child services and transfer custody if there is an indication of abuse or neglect by a parent or temporary guardian.^[61] Secretary Marco Rubio argued that parents make a simple choice: “either take your child …. or not”^[62] Some families create safety plans but are given little-to-no opportunity for prior arrangements.^[63] In one case, the mother of a seven-year-old child with cancer was deported after she was not able to speak with her attorney or family members. ^[64] Such delay may lead to termination of “parental rights because they have not completed their plan in time.”^[65] In many cases, parents were detained and deported within two or three days of arrest without an opportunity to contact family or arrange custody of children.^[66]

For children, the deportation of family members causes substantial hardships, such as trauma, and short-term and long-term economic and emotional hardship.^[67] Historical research demonstrates that displacement of U.S. citizen children to a foreign country produces long-term economic, psychological, and social harm.^[68] Moreover, citizen children experience high “levels of distress after a parent’s deportation regardless of whether they remain in the United States or return with their parents.”^[69] Specifically, reunification of families becomes nearly impossible the longer children are separated from their family.^[70] Many families are never reunified due to the lack of family unity concern and policy.^[71] As such, the harm suffered by American children demonstrates that immigration enforcement policies create lasting damage to children, which directly conflict with the constitutional protections for family unity and parental rights.

C. The Option to Stay.

The foster care system “provide[s] children deemed unsafe with an alternative place to live.”^[72] However, some parents leave American-born children behind because “the pain of separation is a lesser burden than the pain of dislocation and displacement.”^[73] These children enter the foster care system and shift financial costs onto taxpayers”^[74] and are “subjected to particular and deep systemic barriers to reunification.”^[75] Many children never get the chance to say goodbye to their parents before they are deported.^[76] Others are left in the care of individuals, like Nora Sandigo, who opened her organization in 2006 and has been the legal guardian to 2,373 children across Miami, Florida.^[77] These children are “likely to experience significant social isolation, disaffection, and disillusionment with the United States,” and they will  still be “traumatized and angry over how their families have been treated.”^[78] Outcomes such as these violate the international human rights principles governing children and family unity.

The United States stands alone as the only country that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), which recognizes a child’s right “to be raised by his parents [as] an internationally recognized principle.”^[79]However, the binding treaty on the United States is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which “protect[s] the right to family unity”^[80] and “the right to live together.”^[81] This human rights approach grants children rights “not because they are sufficiently adult-like or because of their particular vulnerabilities but because they are human beings who deserve . . . dignity and respect.”^[82]  

However, immigration policy departs from international norms by failing to prevent family separation and address the substantial hardship on children.^[83] In order to meet the nation’s international human rights obligations, the United States would need to allow for individualized hearings that consider not only the government’s interest in deporting an immigrant but also the immigrant’s family ties and connections to the United States.^[84] Consequently, the United States will continue to violate fundamental human right principles until it no longer recognizes family separation and substantial hardship as acceptable results of its policies..

D.     The Consequences of De Facto Deportation.

As discussed previously, Secretary Marco Rubio stated that children simply leave with their mother and have the option to come back.^[85] However, the choice “to keep their child with them or send them back to the U.S.” without a parent is not easy nor simple.^[86] The resulting choice is de facto deportation because “a person suffers deportation as a practical consequence, even if this is not legally recognized as deportation.”^[87] American children of undocumented parents are required “to postpone their rights as a citizen just because their parents are not citizens.”^[88] Courts have held that parental deportation will not affect a child’s right “to be free to return and make her home in this county.”^[89]However, the Supreme Court has held that “legislation directing the onus of a parent’s misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.”^[90] This argument is “stronger in the case of citizen children who have a right to be afforded the benefits of the Constitution and the benefits of citizenship.”^[91]

Immigrants leave their native countries for many different reasons, like escaping poverty, gang-violence, and political warfare.^[92] Citizen children who leave with their parents must “[grow] up in conditions that will deprive them of the benefits of education, healthcare, and economic resources and opportunities that they are entitled to as America citizens.”^[93] Therefore, children must return to America to “get the opportunity to use the benefits of their citizenship before making the choice.”^[94] Those children who later return to America face struggle to reintegrate into American society after years of diminished opportunities.^[95] Many children are “not able to return to the United States because of the difficulty of establishing U.S. citizenship if their parents had died.”^[96]

Historical research shows that forcing American children to relocate to a foreign country produces lasting economic, psychological, and social harm.^[97] In Mexico, more than 600,000 American-born children are enrolled in public schools where “less than 5 percent of their teachers speak any English.”^[98] Further, relocation to a foreign country burdens children’s access to education and resources because “[t]hose who are educated in the U.S. tend to have greater earnings than their peers educated abroad.”^[99] Moreover, many of these children are undocumented in their parents’ country and “often ineligible for health insurance and other benefits that their Mexican counterparts get.”^[100]Specifically, many Countries “are lacking the basic medical and health care facilities and methods that are enjoyed by persons in the United States.”^[101] Thus, by removing parents with their children, the government is taking away the opportunity of the citizen child to obtain the best medical and health care he can obtain.”^[102]

Conclusion

As this article explained, the removal of parents imposes substantial hardships on children and caregivers. Immigration policy should not treat this decision as “simple” because failing to recognize the harm to American children and families is inconsistent with the level of responsibility and respect given to parents in other spheres of U.S. law. Regardless of what decision is made, American children will suffer harmful consequences. Specifically, they will either have to leave the U.S. and move to a foreign country, or they will have to stay in the U.S. without their parents. Thus, American children will be subjected to irreparable harm because they will be forced to pay for the consequences of their parents’ choices.

^[1] See Jasmine Garsd, What Happens To The Kids? Fearing Deportation, Immigrant Parents Make Contingency Plans, NPR (Oct. 2, 2025, 11:01 AM), https://www.npr.org/2025/09/22/nx-s1-5538446/fearing-deportation-families-with-mixed-immigration-status-make-emergency-plans

^[2] Garsd, supra note 1.

^[3] Id.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Id.

^[6] Id.

^[7] Id.

^[8] Thanks To President Trump and Secretary Noem, More Than 2.5 million Illegal Aliens Have Left The U.S, DHS (Dec. 10, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/10/thanks-president-trump-and-secretary-noem-more-25-million-illegal-aliens-left-us.

^[9] Fact Check—DHS is NOT Deporting American Children, DHS (Apr. 29, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/29/fact-check-dhs-not-deporting-american-children.

^[10] Jessie M. Mahr, Protecting Our Vulnerable Citizens: Birthright Citizenship and the Call for Recognition of Constructive Deportation, S.Ill. Univ. L. J. ,723, 729 (2008).

^[11] See discussion infra Part A.

^[12] See discussion infra Part B.

^[13] See discussion infra Part C.

^[14] See discussion infra Part D.

^[15] Coleman v. United States, 454 F. Supp. 2d 757, 766 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (quoting Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 617–18 (7th Cir. 2003)).

^[16] Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 766; see also Acosta v. Gaffney, 558 F.2d 1153, 1157 (3d Cir. 1977); Kruer v. Gonzales, 2005 LEXIS 13030, at 1,  24 (E.D. Ky. 2005); but see Ayala-Flores v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 667 F.2d 444, 445 (6th Cir. 1981).

^[17] 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(D).

^[18] Salameda v. I.N.S., 70 F.3d 447, 451–52 (7th Cir. 1995) (vacating parent’s deportation order because the de facto deportation of an immigrant minor child who had lived his entire life in the United States constituted an extreme hardship).

^[19] Id.

^[20] Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 768.

^[21] Id.

^[22] Mahr, supra note 10, at 735 n. 98 (quoting Perdido v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 420 F.2d 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 1969).

^[23] Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 769 n. 14.

^[24] Id. at 768.

^[25] Venus Booth, Citizenship as a Birthright: What the United States can Learn from Failed Policies in the United Kingdom and Ireland, Az. J. Int’l. & Comp. L. 693, 694 (2011).

^[26]  Mahr, supra note 10, at 724.

^[27] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

^[28] Jus Soli, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024), (defining the rule that a child’s citizenship is determined by place of birth and affirmed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution).

^[29] 8 U.S.C. § 1401.

^[30] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898).

^[31] Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 652.

^[32] Wong Kim Ark, at 653.

^[33] Id.

^[34] Id. at 693

^[35] Id. At 704-05.

^[36] Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 29, 2025)

^[37] CASA, Inc. v. Trump, 763 F.Supp.3d 723, 747 (D. Md. 2025)(order granting preliminary injunction).

^[38] Doe v. Trump, 766 F.Supp.3d 266, 270-290 (D. Mass. 2025)(order granting preliminary injunction).

^[39] State of Washington v. Trump, 765 F.Supp.3d 1142, 1147-1154 (W.D. Wash, 2025) (order granting preliminary injunction).

^[40] Appl., at 2, Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 1, 26 (Barret, J., in chamber).

^[41] Trump, 606 U.S. at 26 (Barret, J., in chamber); see also, Amy Howe, “Trump Asks Supreme Court to Step in on Birthright Citizenship,” SCOTUS BLOG, (Mar. 13, 2025), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-step-in-on-birthright-citizenship/

^[42] Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Sept. 29, 2025).

^[43] Amy Howe, “How Birthright Citizenship Made it Back to the Supreme Court,” SCOTUS BLOG (Sept. 29, 2025), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenship-made-it-back-to-the-supreme-court/

^[44] Children in U.S. Immigrant Families, Migration Pol’y Inst., https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/children-immigrant-families (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).

^[45] See Children in U.S. Immigrant Families, Migration Pol’y Inst., https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/children-immigrant-families (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).

^[46] Salameda v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 70 F.3d 447, 449 (7th Cir. 1995).

^[47] Acosta v. Gaffney, 558 F.2d 1153, 1157 (3d Cir. 1977).

^[48] Mahr, supra note 10, at 735 n. 98.

^[49] Lori A. Nessel, Deporting America’s Children: The Demis of Discretion and Family Values in Immigration Law, 61 Ariz. L. Rev. 605, 615 (2019).

^[50] Nessel, supra note 49, at 607-08.

^[51] Edith Z. Friedler, From Extreme Hardship to Extreme Deference: United States Deportation of Its Own Children, 22 Hastings Const. L. Q. 491, 546 (1991).

^[52] Kristin Maun, Sanctuary from De Facto Deportation: The New Sanctuary Movement and De Facto Deportation Claims for Children Challenging Illegal Immigrant Parents' Removal Orders, 15 Rich. J. L. & Pub. Int. 449, 461 n. 173 (2012) (quotations omitted).

^[53] Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 1, 41 (2025) (holding that introduction of LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks without parental notice or opt-outs unconstitutionally burdens parents’ religious exercise); see also Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464, 486 (2020) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S 205, 213–14, (1972)(finding that parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children)).

^[54] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) (holding that prosecution of a school teacher for teaching a student foreign language violates the rights of parents to direct the education of their child); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534–35 (1925) (upholding parental rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children).

^[55] Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 72 (2000) (holding that parents have a fundamental right to direct decision about the care and control of their children); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (finding that the Due Process Clause requires states to prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing standard before terminating parental rights); Moore v. City of Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 504-06 (1977) (stating that the government may not interfere with the right of both immediate and extended family to live together); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944) (acknowledging the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children).

^[56] Mahr, supra note 10, at 735 n. 98 (quoting Perdido v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 420 F.2d 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 1969)).

^[57] Seth Freed Wessler, Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System, Applied Research Center, 1, 10 (2011).

^[58] B & J Minors, 279 Mich. App. 12, 20 n.5 (2008) (quoting Liu v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 13 F.3d

^[59] Friedler, supra note 51, at 529.

^[60] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements, ICE Directive 11064.4, Detention and Removal of Alien Parents and Legal Guardians of Minor Children, (2025), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/11064.4.pdf (replacing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements, ICE Directive 11064.3, Interests of Noncitizen Parents or Legal Guardians of Minor Children or Incapacitated Adults (2022), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/11064.3_InterestsNoncitizenParents.pdf.

^[61] Id.

^[62] NBC News, Sec. Rubio Says All On U.S. Soil Entitled To Due Process As Trump Admin Reportedly Deports Citizens, Youtube (Apr. 27, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsSOksdGYeM.

^[63] Suzanne Gamboa et al., Attorneys Dispute Trump Officials’ Claim that Deported Moms Willingly Took Their U.S. Citizen Children, NBC News (Apr. 28, 2025, 7:19 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/deported-moms-citizen-children-cancer-trump-officials-rcna203398; see also Dianne Solis, U.S. Citizen Kids Face the Deportation of Their Immigrant Parents, Dallas Morning News(Apr. 5, 2018, 7:54 AM), https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/04/05/deported-us-citizen-kids-facelossimmigrant-parents.

^[64] Gamboa et al., supra note 54.

^[65] Wessler, supra note 57, at 19.

^[66] Marc Levy, ICE Deported 3 Children Who Are U.S. Citizens, Their Families’ Lawyers Say, PBS (Apr. 27, 2025 12:12 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ice-deported-3-children-who-are-u-s-citizens-their-families-lawyers-say.

^[67] Zoya Gubernskaya & Joanna Dreby, US Immigration Policy and the Case for Family Unity, 5 J. on Migration & Hum. Sec.,418, 422 (2017).

^[68] Nessel, supra note 49.

^[69] Zoya, supra note 67, at 423 (quoting Nicholas P. De Genova, Migrant ‘Illegality’ and Deportability in Everyday Life, Ann. Rev. Anthropology, 419, 419–47 (2002)).

^[70] Wessler, supra note 57, at 19 (quotations omitted).

^[71] Id.

^[72] Id. at 13.

^[73] Brooke Jarvis, More than 600,000 U.S.-born Children of Undocumented Parents Live in Mexico, What Happens When You Return to a Country You’ve Never Known?, Cal. Sunday Magazine, (Jan. 21, 2019), https://story.californiasunday.com/deported-americans/.

^[74] Nessel, supra note 49, at 607–08.

^[75] Wessler, supra note 57, at 17.

^[76] Anthony Advincula, U.S.-Born Children Struggle After Parents are Deported, CENTER FOR HEALTH JOURNALISM, https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/our-work/reporting/us-born-children-struggle-after-parents-are-deported

^[77] Ana Vidal Egea, Nora Sandigo, ‘The Great Mother’ Who Offers Refuge to Migrant Families in the United States, El País (Jan. 2, 2026, 23:45 EST), https://english.elpais.com/usa/2026-01-03/nora-sandigo-the-great-mother-who-offers-refuge-to-migrant-families-in-the-united-states.html.

^[78] Nessel, supra note 49, at 607–08.

^[79] Maun, supra note 43 (quoting Amanda Colvin, Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and International Comparisons Toward Proposing a Solution, 53 St. Lous L. J. 219, 220-21, 226-27 (2008)).

^[80] Clara Long et. al, The Deported: Immigrants Uprooted from the Country They Call Home, Hum. Rts. Watch 1, 37 n. 69 (Dec. 5, 2017), https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/05/deported/immigrants-uprooted-country-they-call-home/

^[81] Id. at 38 n. 70 (quotations omitted).

^[82] David B. Thronson, Kids Will Be Kids? Reconsidering Conceptions of Children’s Rights Underlying Immigration Law, 63 Ohio St. L. J. 979, 980-89 (2002) (quoting Martha Minow, Whatever Happened to Children’s Rights?, 80 Minn. L. Rev. 267, 279 (1995)); see also Cecelia M. Espenoza, Good Kids, Bad Kids: A revelation About the Due Process Rights of Children, 23 Hastings Const. L. Q. 407, 414 (1996)).

^[83] David B. Thronson, supra note 73, at 988.

^[84] Long, supra note 80, at 4.

^[85] NBC News, supra note 62.

^[86] Suzanne Gamboa & Carmen Sesin, Why U.S. Citizen Children Sent With Their Deported Moms Can’t Come Back Easily, NBC News (May 19, 2025, 11:05 AM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/deported-parents-us-citizen-children-return-legal-ice-marco-rubio-rcna207223.

^[87] Maun supra note 43, at 20.

^[88] Mahr, supra note 10, at 737.

^[89] Ayala-Flores v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 667 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir. 1981).

^[90] Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 205 (1982) (holding that undocumented children were within the United States jurisdiction under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and should not be punished for their parents’ actions, which they cannot control).

^[91] Mahr, supra note 10, at 737.

^[92] Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants, Amnesty Int’l, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2026).

^[93] Nessel, supra note 49, at 607–08.  

^[94] Id.  at 615.

^[95] Id. at 616.

^[96] Id.

^[97] Id. at 615.

^[98] Jarvis, supra note 73.

^[99] Mahr, supra note 10, at 741.  

^[100] Jarvis, supra note 73.

^[101] Mahr, supra note 10, at 742.

^[102] Id.