The Dual Logic of U.S. and EU Immigration Policies for Unaccompanied Minors in Illiberal Times.

In the past decade, the global landscape has become increasingly volatile, marked by deepening inequalities, persistent conflicts, climate-induced crises, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. These dynamics have fuelled a pervasive sense of insecurity and have catalysed the rise of illiberal political rhetoric, particularly around migration. Across both sides of the Atlantic, migration has been increasingly framed through a security lens amid the ascent of far-right populist movements. As a result, migration governance has become more restrictive, rendering mobility hazardous and uncertain. Against this context, how have United States (U.S.) and European Union (UE) addressed the compelling issue of unaccompanied minors (UMs), children who migrate without a family member or an adult guardian? Unaccompanied minors occupy a uniquely vulnerable position at the intersection of migration and child protection systems, questioning state sovereignty and responsibility. Their status as children, foreigners, and individuals separated from familial networks places them at heightened risk of exploitation, detention, and exclusion. Legal pathways for their migration remain limited, often forcing them into irregular and dangerous routes. This paper examines the evolving policy landscape affecting UMs in a growing illiberal context, focusing on developments in the U.S. and the EU from 2014 to early 2025. It highlights how the securitization of borders and the criminalization of irregular migration have intensified the tension between national security imperatives, and international human rights obligations, particularly those concerning unaccompanied minors. Despite their vulnerability, research on UMs is still fragmented and largely confined to national contexts, with limited cross-national comparative analysis. This study addresses this gap by offering a comparative examination of immigration policies and protection systems for UMs in U.S. and EU. It interrogates the dual approach where protective and restrictive measures coexist, and challenges the assumption that liberal democracies inherently uphold child rights commitments. The paper combines qualitative and quantitative policy analysis with theoretical insights from migration studies and child rights frameworks. It traces the evolution of relevant policies affecting directly and indirectly UM vulnerability. The findings reveal that while Western democracies maintain selective and restrictive immigration regimes for adults, their approach to UMs is more ambivalent, oscillating between humanitarian protection and exclusionary practices. The comparative analysis across policy domains, such as entry and border control, legal representation, asylum procedures, and reception practices, highlights both convergence and divergence between U.S. and EU systems of (un)protection. While both have adopted increasingly restrictive measures at borders, the EU has developed a more structured, albeit fragmented, protective framework for UMs than the U.S. Nevertheless, both systems often treat UMs primarily as migrants rather than as children, exposing them to legal limbos, detention, and deterrence practices. Therefore, UMs prefer to rely on criminal networks and to move through irregular pathways. Ultimately, the study underscores the persistent precarious situation faced by UMs and calls for a recalibration of immigration policy that centers child rights and protection, in line with the best interests of the child principle enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Child (1989).