Reform Advocacy – Migrant Child Labor in the United States
Kyle Huffman • June 15, 2023
On February 25, 2023, the New York Times published a compelling piece
by journalist Hannah Dreier, exploring the topic of the exploitation of migrant children by major corporations in the United States.
In the article, The Times interviewed more than 100 migrant child workers in 20 states in the United States. The breadth and diversity of the jobs held by these children is truly shocking, and a depressing number of these jobs are in highly dangerous environments. There are examples of young migrants cleaning meatpacking plants at night after a full school day, stacking metal castings at the Hyundai Motor Group, and working 12-hour shifts at a conveyor belt packaging cereals and snack products, among many other dangerous and labor-intensive positions.
Most reasonable people will hear this news and immediately understand just how troubling this situation is and see the immediate need to make efforts to correct these unjust and horrific practices. But what can be done to address this situation?
According to NPR’s congressional correspondent Claudia Grisales, “It's going to be a really, really tall order for Congress. Republicans say that a crackdown on border security is the answer here. And several noted that the House Judiciary Committee will now begin work on a GOP border security bill, but we do not expect that to go far with a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House. House Democrats are asking for a bipartisan solution, but that's going to be really difficult for Congress to get on the same page here.”
In my view, it is the wrong approach to focus on border security to address these issues. Sure, changes to border security may positively impact this negative situation, but it would be far better to approach a resolution from the other side of this equation: going after the large corporations who are hiring migrant children in violation of the law. Changes to the United States border security policy will not address the underlying economic challenges that have resulted in record numbers of unaccompanied minors showing up at the United States’ southern border. Policy of separating children from their parents, which is quite horrific, was enforced by the prior presidential administration, and still, record numbers of individuals undertook the treacherous journey to the United States.
Rather than punishing children and families seeking a better life, the United States should focus on punishing companies turning record profits by exploiting these families by violating labor laws. It is worth noting that several of the corporations mentioned in the articles are currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor, and greater consequences may still be seen. However, in the case of the Hyundai Glovis Facility in Alabama, so far the only punishments issued have been to the three staffing agencies hired by Hyundai to staff the facility, each of which were fined only $5,050. Hyundai’s use of staffing agencies has enabled the company thus far to escape liability for profiting off illegal child labor by placing the blame for these law violations on the staffing agencies hired. If the United States is looking for potential solutions to this widespread issue, one avenue would be to start here. The United States could close the existing legal loopholes that allow major corporations to escape liability for their exploitative practices, and instead impose strict penalties, which is far more likely to result in significant positive outcomes. In addition, harsh financial penalties for this type of labor law violation could be used to support the programs within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for caring for unaccompanied minors in the United States.
In 2022, the same year these labor practices were revealed in news media, and Hyundai’s staffing agencies took action resulting in them having to pay a total of $15,150 in penalties, Hyundai reported a 47% increase in operating profit to $7.35 Billion. In looking for solutions to what are clearly major problems for the United States, perhaps the United States should start by making the companies with hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in resources take greater care in their hiring policies and imposing harsh financial penalties for violation of the labor laws by hiring undocumented and underage workers. No company doing business in the United States should be able to profit billions of dollars off the exploitation of illegal child labor. Enhancing the financial punishment of companies found to be engaging in these practices would have the twofold effect of deterring labor law violations by making the punishment potential more daunting than the profit potential, and simultaneously creating a new source of funding to support the programs charged with caring for these vulnerable individuals by utilizing any financial penalties imposed.
This blog is not intended to be legal advice and nothing here should be construed as establishing an attorney client relationship. Please schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney before acting on any information read here.
On September 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security , halting the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) final rule that was scheduled to eliminate “duration of status” (D/S) on September 15, 2026. As a result of this nationwide order, DHS is blocked from enforcing fixed periods of admission for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I media representatives while the litigation moves forward. Because the current “duration of status” framework remains in full effect, F, J, and I visa holders are not required to file Form I-539 extension of stay applications to remain in valid status beyond program end dates at this time. Furthermore, restrictions on academic transfers, constraints on enrolling in second programs at the same degree level, 240-day caps on continued employment while extensions are pending, and shortened grace periods do not apply during the injunction. F-1 nonimmigrants retain the full 60-day post-completion grace period, and J-1 holders maintain their 30-day grace period. However, please note that this preliminary injunction is not a final ruling invalidating the rule , and a status conference is scheduled for October 2, 2026, to determine next steps in the litigation. Immediate Practice Tips: Inspect I-94 Travel Records Upon Reentry: F, J, and I visa holders currently admitted under D/S retain their status and should continue to be readmitted under D/S following international travel until the injunction is lifted. However, because the I-94 record controls legal stay, travelers must inspect their CBP-issued Form I-94 immediately upon reentry to confirm the "Admit Until Date" states "D/S" rather than a specific expiration date. If a specific date is mistakenly recorded, contact a local CPB Deferred Inspection Site. Notify HR and Review Workplace Compliance: Employers sponsoring F-1 or J-1 employees should inform HR and hiring managers that the September 15 fixed-period rule is postponed and standard D/S rules govern. This development does not alter standard filing windows or Form I-9 verification procedures for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT extensions. Maintain Operational Readiness and Defer Unnecessary Filings: Visa holders and employers should defer travel or filing strategy decisions made solely in anticipation of the fixed-admission rule. Because DHS may appeal or the court could alter the timeline on short notice, institutions and visa holders should maintain readiness to adjust plans if implementation resumes. There are many evolving components to this litigation. If you are an F-1, J-1, or I visa holder, sponsoring institution, or employer, you should proactively coordinate with your international student office and legal counsel to protect your status and monitor upcoming court proceedings.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published its final rule eliminating the longstanding "duration of status" (D/S) policy for F, J, and I visa holders, replacing it with a fixed period of admission effective September 15, 2026. This rule requires that those who need additional time to complete their programs must file Form I-539 with USCIS or travel abroad and seek to reenter to extend their authorized period of stay. F and J visa holders present in the U.S. and in valid status on September 15, 2026, will be allowed to remain in the United States until the Program End Date listed on their current Form I-20 (for F-1s) or Form DS-2019 (for J-1s), up to a maximum of four years (until September 15, 2030) plus a 60-day grace period for F-1s and a 30-day grace period for J-1s, without filing an Extension of Status request with USCIS. However, this safety net only applies while staying in the U.S.; international travel and subsequent reentry after September 15, 2026 will result in readmission under the new rule with an I-94 that expires on the Program End Date or Employment Authorization Document (EAD) expiration, but no later than four-years after their date of re-entry. Additionally, once re-admitted under the new rules, F-1s will only receive a 30-day grace period. Immediate Practice Tips: Any F-1 or J-1 nonimmigrant currently in the U.S. who plans to change programs, start a new degree level, or needs more time to complete their studies must work with their school or program sponsor to update their SEVIS record and receive an extended Form I-20 or DS-2019 before September 15, 2026. Eligible F-1 students should submit their post-completion OPT or STEM OPT work authorization applications (Form I-765) before September 15, 2026, to secure their status and drastically reduce the likelihood of needing a Form I-539 extension application. Any F-1 student who is eligible to apply for OPT or STEM OPT before March 18, 2027, should do so as soon as they are eligible to file their Form I-765. Since F-1s can file OPT applications up to 90 days in advance of graduation, F-1 students graduating before June 15,2027, should be able to file their OPT applications before March 18, 2027, and should do so to avoid also having to file Form I-539 to extend their stay. Thus, most F-1 students graduating in December 2026 and May/June 2027 should be able to take advantage of the transition rule’s delay in having to file Form I-539 applications and should only need to file Form I-765 to apply for OPT. Incoming F-1 and J-1 students who can enter the United States before the September 15, 2026 effective date (within the permissible 30-day window prior to their program start) should do so to benefit from the transition rules, including the full 60-day F-1 grace period and deferred extension requirements. Students (F-1 and J-1) who are planning international travel should return before the effective date if possible to preserve their transition benefits. There are many parts of the rule that are not discussed here. If you are currently an F-1 or J-1 visa holder, you should proactively coordinate with your institutions and international office to protect your status and stay informed.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released updated policy guidance detailing how officers will evaluate "public charge" inadmissibility for individuals applying for green cards through adjustment of status. This update follows a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) final rule that rescinds the 2022 public charge regulations. The new policy takes effect on September 18, 2026 , and applies to all green card applications (Form I-485) postmarked or submitted on or after that date. Who Is Subject to the Public Charge Rule? Most family-based and employment-based green card applicants will be subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This includes spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, as well as most employment visa preference categories, investors, and diversity visa applicants. Certain categories remain explicitly exempt under immigration law. These include: Asylees and refugees Victims of human trafficking (T visa) or crime (U visa) Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners Special Immigrant Juveniles Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants Certain military-related applicants and other designated humanitarian groups How USCIS Will Make Determinations USCIS officers will evaluate whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge by reviewing the totality of their circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Key factors include: Five Statutory Factors: Age, health, family status, assets/financial resources, and education or skills. Affidavit of Support: Submission of Form I-864 executed by a sponsor. Use of Public Benefits: USCIS will look at means-tested public benefits, such as cash assistance for income maintenance, housing assistance, food stamps (SNAP), or college financial aid. Note on timing: For benefits received before September 18, 2026, USCIS will only consider public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. For benefits received on or after September 18, 2026, the broader consideration of all listed means-tested benefits will apply. Public Charge Bonds If an officer determines that an applicant is inadmissible solely on public charge grounds, USCIS may issue a Notice of Intent to Deny that invites the applicant to post a public charge bond using Form I-945. If an invited applicant successfully posts the required cash or surety bond, USCIS may approve the application for permanent residence. Public charge bonds can only be submitted if explicitly invited by USCIS. Santos Lloyd Law Firm will continue to monitor immigration developments closely and provide updates as further implementation details are released. For more information, please access: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-on-making-public-charge-inadmissibility-determination
