Offering protection to immigrant youths in America: Is asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status truly in the best interest of the child?

Abstract In the United States (US), children's ‘best interest’ principles are central to child welfare policy, but their incorporation into immigration laws is less robust. Drawing on data from international and domestic policies, interviews with legal professionals and legal guidelines, we compare how Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) and asylum – the main forms of immigration relief for undocumented youths in the US – align with children's best interest principles. SIJS, while promising, undermines family integrity by imposing rigid child‐rearing standards that may penalize immigrant families. Asylum upholds family integrity, but the application process involves intense interviews and strict evidentiary standards that harm youths’ well‐being. Given asylum's high denial rates, the process often results in trauma without much promise of the permanency asylum can offer. Consequently, both SIJS and asylum fall short of protecting children's rights and best interests. We argue that how legal systems manage youths significantly affects youths’ well‐being and their access to rights and benefits. The impact of legal processes on youths should be paramount to best interest policies and practices. We conclude with policy recommendations for SIJS and asylum that better promote children's best interests.