Guatemala City: A confidential report from Guatemala’s attorney general’s office has raised sharp questions about recent U.S. deportations of unaccompanied migrant children, contradicting Washington’s assertion that families supported the removals. The findings add a new layer of controversy to an already fraught immigration battle, with families describing the process as coercive and deeply unsettling.
According to the Guatemalan document, out of 115 families contacted about the possible return of their children from U.S. custody, 59 voiced outright opposition. Several parents insisted they never agreed to have their children deported and feared for their safety if forced back. At least one family reported receiving death threats in Guatemala, highlighting the dangers many minors sought to escape in the first place.
The U.S. administration had initially presented the deportations as part of a structured “family reunification” program, aimed primarily at 17-year-olds close to legal adulthood. However, the Guatemalan report reveals that the scope was suddenly broadened to include younger adolescents, catching local officials by surprise. The abrupt shift raised alarms about both the legitimacy and the humanitarian implications of the operation.
Details from U.S. shelters describe the deportation drive as a late-night operation. Children were woken from sleep in South Texas facilities, rushed to buses, and taken to airports in an atmosphere of confusion and fear. Minors later testified that the experience was more traumatic than anything they had endured during their time in shelters.
The revelations prompted a swift legal response in the United States. A federal judge issued a temporary halt on all child deportations until September 14, citing the need to examine whether due process and child protection protocols had been violated. Rights advocates have since condemned the deportation efforts as reckless, arguing that the evidence points to pressure tactics rather than genuine family consent.
For Washington, the report strikes at the heart of its credibility. While officials continue to defend the deportations as a coordinated effort with Guatemala, the internal findings suggest that consent was far from universal and in many cases, absent altogether. For Guatemala, the episode underscores the vulnerability of migrant families and the tension between diplomatic cooperation and protecting its citizens.
As both governments brace for further scrutiny, the controversy highlights the broader debate over how unaccompanied minors should be treated under immigration law caught between border enforcement priorities and the humanitarian obligations owed to children fleeing violence and poverty.