by Kazi Abusaleh, PhD Candidate & Patricia Shannon, PhD
Minnesota’s (MN) undocumented immigrant population is estimated at approximately 100,000, of which 4% are children under the age of 16 years (Migration Policy Institute, 2023). Moreover, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR, 2025) report shows that around 2,800 unaccompanied minors arrived in MN between 2020 and 2024. These figures suggest a discrete but significant cohort of children whose immigration status is of interest to child welfare, legal aid, social services, and schools. However, recent shifts in U.S. immigration enforcement have transformed what once seemed improbable, marked by increased deportation risks, accelerated court timelines, and growing family separation concerns. This perspective explores how immigration enforcement policies intersect with child welfare practices, drawing on the ground-level experiences of Alison Griffith, an attorney at Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid’s (MMLA) immigration legal services, and Kim Boche, a supervising attorney at the Advocates for Human Rights (AHR). This piece centers on perspectives of these attorneys to highlight four developments: (1) the sharp decrease in prosecutorial authority of the law enforcement agencies to enforce their vested powers against someone; (2) financial and procedural barriers to Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) and asylums; (3) introduction of the pretermission rule, allowing judges to terminate asylum applications before evidence is heard; and (4) the termination of immigration non-enforcement in sensitive spaces.
Recent Enforcement Shifts and Their Impacts on Children and Families in Minnesota
In interviews, both attorneys described how the past year has become a turning point in immigration enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion–historically enabled the government to decrease or suspend removal proceedings for unaccompanied juveniles, including low-risk individuals and families–has sharply declined. “Within the past year, there has been a huge decrease in prosecutorial discretion,” Kim Boche explained, and “the removal proceedings are moving very quickly.” Echoing the urgency from a child welfare vantage point, Alison Griffith also noted that removal proceedings can move extremely fast and a child is most certainly issued a removal order rather than a continuance if they do not show up in court. In practice, this erosion of discretion reflects a significant shift in enforcement priorities, including heightened vulnerabilities of minors navigating immigration and child welfare systems.
This acceleration in proceedings has particular consequences for children pursuing Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), a potential pathway to permanency to stay lawfully in the United States for minors who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned. However, SIJS may not operate like a permanent shield in the current environment. Boche warned that under current trends, children with SIJS status in Minnesota are increasingly being pushed toward immigration court for full merits hearings and deportation orders unless they also have a legal protection that pauses proceedings, e.g., pending asylum claims. To this end, Griffith noted that SIJS protection depends on what happens early in a child’s case. She added that as soon as a CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) petition is filed, the judicial officer, the Guardian ad Litem, and the county worker should work together to ensure the child is quickly referred for a confidential immigration consultation. These early coordination efforts allow immigration counsel to begin pursuing any relief that may be available to the child, including securing the specific court findings required for SIJS.
Both attorneys described financial barriers as a real-time practice problem to apply and maintain legal status in the emerging context. In 2025, new filing fees were introduced for minors, including a $250 for SIJS petitions and an additional $100 annually to keep applications moving forward. Besides, the fees to file asylum applications ($100) and for an initial asylum-based work permit ($550) are also pretty high. Families unable to pay filing fees may be forced to delay or forgo filings altogether, which leaves children without legal protection. This is particularly consequential given the evidence that children without legal representation are around five times more vulnerable to deportation in immigration court than those with representation (Gerken, 2024; King & Hall, 2020). By identifying financial barriers as a major challenge, particularly for low-income children and families, Griffith said: “We serve a very low-income community… it means we can't file applications as quickly.” Though attorneys make an effort to partner with mutual aid groups to cover fees, those funds go so quickly due to the scale of need.
Both attorneys also described how recent changes in U.S. immigration enforcement are fundamentally reshaping the landscape for asylum seekers. Implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review in April 2025, the recent pretermission policy allows for the termination of asylum cases deemed legally insufficient before a full hearing or presentation of evidence. Boche described that if someone files an asylum application, an immigration judge can now, all on their own, not with the help of the government, pretermit. They can stop asylum cases before the applicant is heard, given testimony, or submits any evidence. As a result, ICE can detain them and put them in detention once they leave the immigration courtroom. Pretermission is mostly affecting adults with children rather than children themselves. Leaving children, U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike, without a parent or guardian. This shift in policy definitely tears apart families, including imposing a financial strain, particularly on families that depend on fathers’ income.
On the contrary, in January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security abrogated its long-standing practice of refraining from the enforcement of immigration activities in sensitive spaces, such as schools (Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, 2025). This shift has slowed down children’s presence in school and subsequent referrals. The AHR attorney reflected that this definitely affected and slowed down their intake. There has been a steady decline in people calling and interested in pursuing relief and protection, just because there is so much fear, highlighting how this policy change has created tangible barriers for students, educators, and local support networks.
Overlaying Child Welfare Practice
Both Alison Griffith and Kim Boche returned repeatedly to a core practice gap: immigration status and immigration court obligations are often identified too late in child welfare cases. AHR Attorney explained that immigration status often goes unasked in a child welfare setting, where the focus is given on housing, food, and basic needs. MMLA Attorney noted that as soon as a CHIPS petition is filed and a child has been removed from home, the county’s process should include confirming whether the child has a U.S. birth certificate and a social security number. If not, Alison Griffith recommended referring the children and youths immediately to immigration counsel to assess the help they need and protect them from missing hearings. Both attorneys recognized that removal proceedings are moving pretty fast. Hence, failing to incorporate immigration status screening into child welfare or delaying early assessment by immigration counsel may lead to unacknowledged absences at hearings or representation failures, leading to in absentia risks of removal instead of receiving a continuance. In contrast, early involvement of child welfare professionals and referral to immigration counsel can prevent missed hearings, or permanency plans disrupted by deportation.
Practice Implications
Given the immigration enforcement circumstances and complexities of child welfare practices, Minnesota’s community must adopt strategic adaptations. Both attorneys emphasized prioritizing immigration screening as a standard part of early case practice, aiming to reduce in absentia orders, pretermission and courthouse detention, and missed opportunities for protection. To make the referral pipeline faster and more predictable, Alison Griffith emphasized regular statewide training for child welfare professionals to ensure that children and families’ legal needs are well-assessed, including confirming their equitable and just access to immigration counsel. This would allow child welfare professionals to ensure children’s legal representation, including supplying information related to a child’s best interests to the court. To this end, both attorneys emphasized on advance collaborations or communication with pro-bono immigration legal providers due to their limited capacity and waitlist barriers.
Finally, the current immigration enforcement crisis requires cross-sectional collaborative services from multiple stakeholders, such as child welfare, legal aid, education, public health, and community-based organizations. Creating grounds for formal referral pathways, Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) for collaborative actions, and joint training for child welfare professionals can bridge existing fragmentations.
Kazi Abusaleh, PhD candidate, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota. Contact: [email protected]
Patricia Shannon, PhD, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Univeristy of Minnesota