Author: Maria Little

The Central American Minors Program (CAM) provides Guatemalan, Salvadoran, and Honduran children the opportunity to reunite with their parents living in the U.S. through refugee resettlement or parole. The Obama administration created CAM in 2014 and the Trump administration shut down the program in 2018. However, in March 2021, Biden announced he was restarting CAM in two phases. Beginning in March 2021, resettlement agencies started reopening cases that were closed in 2018, and in September 2021, they began accepting new applications. 

Rising Numbers of Unaccompanied Minors

Both versions of CAM were a response to growing numbers of unaccompanied Central American minors arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border and the high-risk nature of child migration. Since 2012, 77% of apprehended unaccompanied minors are from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Researchers attribute this to violence and organized crime in Northern Triangle countries which have targeted youth in recent years. Another motivator for unaccompanied minor migration is reunification with parents in the U.S. and U.S. immigration policy that favors Central American children once they arrive. However, the journey to the U.S. is dangerous, as minors are more vulnerable to criminal organizations and human trafficking during travel. 

UAC Apprehensions at the Southwest Border, by Country of Origin, FY2008-FY2021, CRS

In 2014, the number of unaccompanied minor encounters reached what was then a record high of 68,541 apprehensions. In response, Obama started CAM to discourage irregular and unsafe migration of children. The program reviewed 6,300 applications, approved 99% of them, and transported about 4,600 children and qualifying relatives to the U.S. However, when the Trump administration shut down CAM in 2018,  2,714 approved children did not immigrate. 

The pandemic worsened economic conditions in Northern Triangle countries and exacerbated violence against at-risk children, many of whom were forced to quarantine with their abusers. In 2021, there was a new peak in unaccompanied minor encounters with 112,192 apprehensions in the first 10 months, prompting the Biden administration to relaunch CAM. 

How does it work?

First, parents who want to bring their children living in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras to the U.S. fill out an application through a refugee resettlement agency. Under the Obama administration, only parents who were Lawful Permanent Residents, Temporary Protected Status, Parole, Deferred Action, Deferred Enforced Departure, or Withholding of Removal could apply. Biden extended eligibility to legal guardians in all these categories, and parents or guardians with pending asylum applications or pending US visa petitions filed before May 15, 2021. Next, humanitarian offices in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras make contact with the child. Minors may be stepchildren or adopted, but must be under the age of 21 and unmarried. Once contact has been made, the child goes through multiple rounds of questioning at a humanitarian office, and agencies determine if the child is eligible for refugee status or parole. If approved, parents must pay for and submit a DNA test, and guardians must prove their guardianship with an affidavit. Their children are then flown to the U.S. 

Recent developments

Biden’s eligibility requirements, which some expect will expand the program by 100,000 petitioners, have been the most significant change to CAM. However, in January 2022, the attorneys general in Texas, Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against CAM. They state that the program is illegal because it rewards undocumented immigrants, and Biden does not have the authority to enact it without the approval of Congress.

Arguments in Support of CAM

Proponents describe CAM as an effective pathway to legally reunite Central American children with their parents. To supporters, it represents a humanitarian exercise offering a new model for refugee adjudication, because it prioritizes the safety of minors. For example, minors that are not eligible for refugee status can still be paroled in the U.S. if they are found in danger. That being said, some argue that children will travel unaccompanied to the border whether or not they are accepted to CAM because there is a greater guarantee they will be admitted into the U.S. once they arrive.

Supporters also assert that CAM will decrease unaccompanied minor arrivals at the border. The program aimed to be the primary immigration channel for Central American minors, reducing border crossing. After its implementation in 2014 unaccompanied minor encounters decreased by 45%, although this did not last. Therefore, opponents say that CAM instead incentivizes the irregular migration of parents who will be able to bring their children later.

Arguments against CAM

A major criticism of CAM is that its current structure does not help or reach enough children in need. Of the 3,131 cases closed in March 2018, only 1,472 were reopened by February 2022, and the program’s first year saw an 82% decrease in the number of applicants given refugee status. Critics contend that the program only reaches a fraction of Central American children seeking reunification with their parents. Notably, 86% of qualifying children under Obama were Salvadoran, leaving out many children in Guatemala and Honduras. Additionally, the long application process and financial barriers complicate the process for parents in the U.S., while limited language access, dangerous journeys to interview locations, and safety risks while awaiting CAM determinations make it difficult for children in their home countries. On the other hand, supporters praise the program for the speed under which it was originally designed and its innovative approach to immigration policy.

Critics also argue that CAM burdens resettlement agencies and U.S. resources. Expanded eligibility and local office closures under Trump have overwhelmed refugee resettlement agencies with old and new cases only they can file. Furthermore, the resettlement of CAM recipients places added pressure on U.S. social services, like schools and healthcare programs, where children are settled. 

Lastly, opponents claim that CAM increases irregular migration and takes away resources from other Latin American refugees. The eligible immigration status categories are usually given to undocumented migrants, so some say that the program disincentivizes migrants from using lawful immigration pathways like sponsoring their children through green cards. They also contend that these children do not meet refugee status and take away spots from the refugee cap, thereby decreasing the amount of other Latin American refugees allowed to immigrate. However, supporters maintain that the CAM is an essential lifeline for Central American children at risk of persecution and violence, regardless of their ability to meet refugee status.

With the Collaborative Migration Management Strategy, the Biden Administration plans to improve the management of the U.S-Mexico border and asylum claims throughout Mexico and the Northern Triangle to alleviate current pressures on the U.S immigration system. The strategy was announced along with the Root Causes Strategy on July 29, 2021, and is part of Biden’s “Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Humane Immigration System.”

Migration from Central America has risen substantially since 2010. From 2010 to 2019, the percentage of all asylum grants to nationals from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras increased from 4 to 16%. Rising claims from the Northern Triangle region have contributed to large backlogs at the U.S-Mexico border. The Trump administration responded to this situation with asylum bans, metering, and the controversial “Remain in Mexico” program. Biden plans to take a different approach by using the Collaborative Migration Management Strategy to stabilize populations, expand access to international and local protection, expand labor migration programs, reintegrate returning migrants, create humane management at the border, strengthen messaging on migration, and expand lawful pathways for protection in the U.S.

The Biden Administration released an update on their efforts on April 20, 2022, stating they had helped the Mexican and Northern Triangle governments:

• build asylum systems
• offer funding to victims of trafficking
• provide reception services
• arrest human smugglers
• restart the Central American Minors program 

More recently, at the Summit of the Americas, the U.S and other countries committed to expanding legal pathways for migrants (especially Central Americans) and information sharing about transnational crime and human smuggling. These agreements reflect plans in the Collaborative Migration Management Strategy, signaling significant changes in transnational migration governance. A month later, in July of 2022, President Biden and Mexican President Andres Manuel López Obrador also discussed migration. López Obrador expressed his support for more temporary work visas. The most popular labor programs for migrants from Mexico and the Northern Triangle are the H-2A (agricultural workers) and H-2B (non-agricultural workers). In 2020, about 90% of H-2A and 70% of H-2B visas went to Mexicans. Guatemalans received less than 2% of H-2As and 4% of H-2Bs, with smaller figures for Salvadorans and Hondurans. 

In Favor of the Collaborative Migrant Management Strategy

Supporters believe the policy change will improve protection pathways and prioritizes meaningful humanitarian assistance for asylum seekers and a safe border. Specifically, expanding in-region and international pathways to asylum is a major positive step for humane migration management. Supporters also see collaborative efforts between the U.S. and neighboring countries as necessary to managing migration to the U.S. Finally, they assert that these frameworks meet today’s challenges and will be well prepared for future ones.

In Opposition to the Collaborative Migrant Management Strategy

Critics on the left disagree with the administration’s dependence on the Mexican government to improve its asylum system for Central American migrants. They claim that it is unreliable, continuing to treat migrants as potential security threats, and unable to handle increasing claims. Instead, these critics recommend that the U.S. connect with Mexican NGOs and civil society organizations, who fill in for the government and know best what asylum seekers need. Others are against expanding temporary worker programs because of exploitation and abuse in these structures. For example, temporary work visas create an imbalance of power between migrant laborers and employers because workers’ employment is tied to a single employer. Therefore, critics on the left say a visa increase is ineffective in remedying Central American humanitarian crises because work conditions cannot be improved under the same system. 

Critics on the right argue that the policy is ineffective in preventing human smuggling and decreasing immigration flows. Critics claim that admitting unaccompanied minors and family units with asylum programs is counterintuitive to preventing smuggling and trafficking. They say that the government would spend less money on investigations and prosecutions if they resumed the “Remain in Mexico” program. Other conservative critics believe that migration resource centers (part of the plan to expand asylum in Mexico and Central America) would only attract more immigrants, worsening the current border situation. Specifically, amnesty would encourage irregular immigration. 

After the Trump presidency, Biden’s Collaborative Migration Management Strategy is a shift in position on asylum and focuses on increasing access to immigration. The debate is over whether creating more pathways for migrants will alleviate pressures on the U.S-Mexico border or worsen them.

The Root Causes Strategy is the Biden administration’s attempt to address the root causes of migration from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. In July of 2021, the administration announced this strategy via executive order to use the private sector, US diplomacy, and foreign assistance programs to work with governments and local organizations in the Northern Triangle. The strategy is made up of five pillars: 

1. Addressing economic insecurity and inequality, 
2. Combating corruption and advancing the rule of law,
3. Respecting human rights, 
4. Preventing crimes and criminal organizations, and 
5. Combating gender-based violence. 

This policy is in response to the rise in migration from the Northern Triangle, evidenced by the rising Central American-born population in the US which has grown tenfold since 1980. The increase in recent years has been attributed to government corruption, violence, and natural disasters in the region. The Trump administration attempted to curtail this increase in migration through asylum bans, the “Remain in Mexico” program, metering, and the detention of migrant families at the border. Biden’s plan aims to shift away from the criminalization practices and address the root issues of migration using this $4 billion program. 

Recently, the administration released an update on the Root Causes Strategy on April 19, 2022. Vice President Kamala Harris created the Call to Action initiative, which brings together private sector leaders, and generated $1.2 billion in commitments from companies like Microsoft, Nespresso, and Mastercard who plan to launch projects across the Northern Triangle. Furthermore, the US has sent vaccines, given humanitarian assistance, created the Anti-Corruption Task Force, supported human rights defenders, assisted in increasing security, and supported initiatives for women and local organizations.

Arguments in Support of the Root Causes Strategy

Supporters of the Root Causes Strategy argue that relief alone does not curb migration. The COVID-19 pandemic and weather have exacerbated root causes like corruption, violence, and consequences of climate change, and alleviating the effects of these problems alone does not solve them. Others also say that the use of the private sector allows for more economic opportunity in the region. They claim that US and international investment boosts economic activity and forces regional govts to create conditions to attract investment. This ultimately improves conditions for citizens.

Arguments Against the Root Causes Strategy

However, some critics say that the US avoids discussing state-sponsored violence, US intervention, the negative effects of neoliberalism, and historical land inequality when tackling root causes. Therefore, they denounce the program’s dependence on private sector investment, citing that this structure has not worked in the past. Instead, the strategy should focus on labor rights, benefits, and better wages for people instead of corporations. Additionally, they contend that Biden and Harris need a more localized approach. Often, when money goes to local and national governments in the Northern Triangle, which are usually corrupt, it does not end up helping people. Therefore, these critics argue that more money must go to grassroots, faith-based, and local organizations as they are best positioned to curb the root causes of migration. 

On the other hand, other critics insist that the Root Causes Strategy focuses too much on the “push” factors of Central American migration, like limited women’s rights and climate change, instead of the “pull” factors. For example, they argue that assistance to single-parent households in Central America incentivizes men to migrate to the US, and that combating climate change is a waste of money because most migrants come for economic reasons. They recommend policies that strengthen border security and migrant detentions. They also claim that the US government can only make modest changes to the root causes of poverty because Central Americans must change social attitudes about education and corruption. Furthermore, they argue that giving money to community organizations is not the most effective because these groups are unelected, unmonitored, and cannot be held accountable.