When Carolina entered the United States, she imagined the opportunities that the United States were to bring. Instead, she found herself stuffing plastic bags, moving quickly enough so the pounding machinery would not nick her fingers. Living with a family member she had never met, she stated, “sometimes I get tired and feel sick, but I’m getting used to it.” But Carolina isn’t alone. Rather, these factories are filled with child migrant workers who live under the care of government “vetted sponsors” through the unaccompanied minor system.  

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) vets sponsors to send unaccompanied children to live with. Once a UAC is in United States custody, they can be sent to relatives or other vetted sponsors while they wait for immigration proceedings. Yet, when a watchdog probed into the system of vetting these sponsors, they found that there were serious systemic failings with assessing the viability of sponsors. These findings correspond with a 152% increase in illegal child labor since 2018, highlighting a trend that suggests that these unaccompanied minors are at risk of child exploitation and human trafficking. In order to protect these vulnerable children, many of whom migrate to the United States alone, the Office of Refugee Resettlement must re-evaluate and adapt their vetting procedures and hold leadership responsible to ensure these children are not being exploited by their sponsors.

This article focuses on how the system fails this vulnerable group in cases where sponsors are not properly vetted before release. There are many successful cases, however, in which UACs are properly sponsored. This article aims to take a comprehensive approach to the issue, one that transcends political administrations, and identify changes necessary to protect UACs.

The Unaccompanied Children (UAC) System

The UAC system allows migrant children to be paired with a government vetted sponsor to live lawfully in the United States as immigration proceedings continue. For many families, sending their children to the United States alone is an opportunity to escape high crime rates and poverty, even if under the care of a sponsor or relative they hardly know. It’s then no surprise the number of unaccompanied minors that were released by ORR to sponsors skyrocketed to over 100,000 over the last four years, a massive jump from around 16,000 in 2020.

While in many cases, these unaccompanied minors are successfully paired with sponsors that are credible, many being family members, there is a worrisome fraction that are susceptible to abuse in a system that is not fit to protect them. By placing these children in the hands of irresponsible, improperly vetted sponsors, it makes them vulnerable to illegal work, human trafficking, and exploitation. Children as young as 12 and 13 are forced to work in factories, and, while the exact number is disputed and exaggerated by many sources, thousands of children go missing or become unresponsive under this system. The vetting and sponsorship system becomes a formality, and these migrant children are put at serious risk because of lackluster frameworks. 

Holes in the System

In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HSS) Office of the Inspector General found that 16% of children’s case files lacked documentation on what checks were conducted and 19% of children’s case files who were released to sponsors with pending documentation were never updated. When questioned by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the ORR Director was unable to properly answer questions about the 85,000 children that HSS had lost contact with over the last year. Between lack of transparency and lack of accountability, the very people who have the authority to directly protect these children put them at risk. An inability to properly communicate issues, and clear undesire to directly assess them, places the system at a disadvantage. 

Additionally, as applications flood the ORR, it makes genuine efforts to ensure credible sponsors more difficult. In many of these cases, it appears that information was not properly dealt with. Rather, unaccompanied children were carelessly sent to unfinished profiles that lacked documentation. Reports in 2021 from the Office of the Inspector General suggest that 35% of the files had “legibility concerns” from documents provided by the sponsors. When understaffed offices deal with a third of their documentation being near illegible, it becomes clear how these migrant children can be collateral damage in what becomes a lazy job. When combining how during the vetting process information is overlooked, and after there is no accountability or transparency, it paints a clearer picture of the situation. Those in power are unable to properly screen or follow up on their promises, with the lives and health of the children becoming a secondary issue that they provide no insight on how to remedy. 

Additionally concerning, however, is the perverse incentive of many sponsors to take on children and use debt to leverage power. In many of these cases where UACs are working essentially illegal jobs, sponsors leverage their position to enforce a debt system, where the children “owe” their sponsors monetary compensation for allowing them to be in the United States. For these individuals, many of whom are bad actors and not legitimate sponsors, they target the unaccompanied minor system as a way to exploit child labor for financial gain. 

Adjusting the System

With bad actors throughout all steps of the system, it can be difficult to construct meaningful changes and policies to reflect the interests of unaccompanied minors. However, it is critical to hold those in charge accountable, while providing clearer and  more comprehensive frameworks throughout the process to protect this vulnerable group from exploitation and human trafficking.

Prioritizing proper vetting of sponsors is critical to ensuring the safety of unaccompanied minors before they are able to be exploited. This includes instituting a more comprehensive follow-up system. Currently, sponsors are subject to interviews, background checks, forms, and fingerprinting to become a viable sponsor. However, as demonstrated above, many times proper documentation can slip through the cracks. It is important to conduct extensive interviews on candidates, including asking their reasons for applying to become a sponsor. Additionally, proper oversight of documentation and filing must be done. In many cases, sponsors will fill out multiple forms claiming that a UAC is their family member. When layered together, these sponsors allege to have unreasonable numbers of family members migrating. Some even use the same address under different names. It is important for the ORR to hire adequate amounts of people to search through these documents, ensure that all information is received before an unaccompanied minor is released, and follow-up with their cases in a timely manner. The follow-up procedure must be documented alongside the profile, whether it be by phone or in-person, and the Office should require that all unaccompanied minors are met with in-person upon a month, six months, and a year of release. Having the bandwidth to do this may be difficult, requiring the hiring of professionals who are able to satisfactorily ensure the work is done. However, these steps are critical to properly vet sponsors before UACs are released to them.

To combat the issue of transparency and accountability for the ORR, there must be guidelines in place, including reporting from the ORR of proper numbers and frequent checks on the Office to uphold their responsibilities. Allowing the Director of the ORR to be unresponsive to the thousands of children that may go missing under their office is unacceptable. Rather, real, coercive measures should be implemented to ensure that there is incentive for the ORR to act responsibly and credibly. This can include frequent House or Senate hearings about their work, mandating reporting, and checks from other HSS Offices. Ultimately, the ORR must be held accountable for their work and be transparent about the number of unaccompanied children that may be mistreated within their system in order to reform it. 

Conclusion

When unaccompanied minors show up to the United States, they come in the most vulnerable forms: exhausted, starved, and alone. In order to protect these children, it is critical that the government, and the systems that vet their sponsors, take accountability and adequately carry out their responsibilities. When children, like Carolina, are subject to harsh working conditions in the United States, it can exacerbate the already heavy mental toll. Ultimately, it is on the onus of the United States government to increase transparency and accountability, and provide more strict frameworks in the vetting system to protect these children against the very exploitation they came to the United States to escape. 

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: “South Texas Border – U.S. Customs and Border Protection provide assistance to unaccompanied alien children after they have crossed the border into the United States,” Image Sourced from Wikimedia Commons | CC License, no changes made

In late-May of 2013, Ida Angotigirk, a member of the Salluit community in Northern Quebec, disappeared. After nearly a month of Angotirgirk being missing, it was finally reported to the Kativik Regional Police Force, who immediately suspected foul play in her disappearance. In the same year, another Indigenous woman named Bernice Rich was killed in Sheshatshiu, a reserve in Newfoundland and Labrador, by a man who had a history of violent offenses. Her death is remembered years later in the community alongside the numerous other Indigenous women and girls that have gone missing or been killed over the years. 

These stories are far too common in Canada–those that make the news, at least. Indigenous peoples in Canada, despite only making up around 5% of the population, represent a disproportionate fraction of missing people in Canada, specifically women. In 2014, Indigenous women were six times more likely to be homicide victims than non-Indigenous women. Indigenous women also make up 50% of human trafficking cases in Canada. Victims such as Bernice Rich, Ida Angotigirk, and others who make these headlines, seldom receive justice, and their cases are not treated with the necessary level of urgency. Cases frequently go unpublicized, with many of these women never being found or even reported as missing. Canada needs to implement measures, such as a specific national database to fairly report these cases, rather than continuing to treat the issue as second-class or continue their slow, non-prioritized implementation of these ideas. Without serious and swift action, the crisis that affects Indigenous women in Canada will persist with little consequences and scare consideration from the public. 

The Highway of Tears

Crimes committed against these women are not concentrated in specific areas of the country. Cases of human trafficking of Indigenous women span across the major regions in Canada: British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, and more. However, a section of the Yellowhead Highway 16, which runs from Winnipeg to the coast of British Columbia, has been notoriously dubbed the “Highway of Tears” due to its “national crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” Although many Indigenous women have been found, or taken off of, this route, the national crises affects urban and rural areas alike. 

A 2025 report on human trafficking in Canada found that in the last 14 years, after identifying 185 cases of missing or murdered Indigenous women, 67% of those cases still resulted in the victim’s status being missing. To this date, many of the cases that have been suspected to originate from the Highway of Tears are still unsolved. Women have come to fear the region, with interviews from Human Rights Watch stating that their researchers were “struck by the fear expressed by women they interviewed.” Despite Canada having both a national and regional police force to work on these cases, these institutions have seemingly failed these communities, both in bringing justice to the victims, but also in ensuring that their constituents feel safe to express their concerns. 

Critiques: Colonialism and Socioeconomic Disparities in Canada

Many hypothesize that the largest contributor to these inequalities is Canada’s legacy of colonialism. The Indian Act, which was passed in 1876, established reserved lands and aimed to assimilate the Indigenous people of Canada during the British Colonial Rule. It rigidly structured the Indigenous population, both by forbidding them to leave their reservations and creating strict power dynamics for Indigenous women. For example, if an Indigenous woman married a non-Indigenous man, it would result in them giving up their Indigenous status. Additionally, even if an Indigenous woman married another Indigenous man, the man would be allowed to surrender her status as an Indigenous woman for Canadian citizenship and land. All land and property thus belonged to the men of these reservations, and women had few rights outside of what their husband permitted. Indigenous women were also socially, though reinforced by the Indian Act, to remain “pure and chaste,” with any deviation from this norm resulting in being deemed unworthy of respect. Sexual shaming thus became a frequent issue in these communities, leading to those who experienced sexual violence less likely to come forward with their stories to not seem “impure.”

Socioeconomic disparities also contribute to the lack of reporting and increased targeting of Indigenous women. For example, 18% of Indigenous peoples live in core housing, while only 10% of non-Indigenous households do. Additionally, studies published by the National Library of Medicine have reported that medical institutions in Canada frequently overlook the needs of Indigenous women. Many of these institutions are rooted in discriminatory practices, which decreases the desire for these women to share their experiences. With limited access to safe housing, and a deep mistrust of health resources, Indigenous women are more vulnerable to sexual crimes, with nearly 44% of Indigenous women reporting physical or sexual abuse, which is nearly double the percentage of non-Indigenous women (25%). The continued effects of socioeconomic disparities, which also stem from the issue of colonialism, make it difficult for Indigenous women to protect themselves against the persistent dangers of human trafficking and death.  

In the context of Canada’s complex history with colonialism, and the few efforts to deconstruct the structures that this Act created, it is no surprise that Indigenous women have continued to be victims of crime. While the Canadian government has attempted to interfere less with these Indigenous populations, it also means they no longer adequately protect these groups. The marginalization of Indigenous women, even by their own communities, can lead to crimes of sexual violence, trafficking, and kidnapping to be overlooked. Rather than protect the victims of these crimes, it’s easier to forget about them and shame them for the promiscuous nature of their disappearances. These fundamental social and historical influences have affected present-day Canadian society, with the government and police forces overlooking Indigenous women as victims that deserve fair justice and equal importance. 

The Role of Police and Government

Institutions, such as the Canadian government and their police authorities, have failed the Indigenous populations. From underreporting, to a lack of urgency in fixing these systemic issues, there are various barriers for these Indigenous women to obtain justice in a system that works against them.

The police systems and news sources actively play a role in the continuation of these disproportionate abuses against Indigenous women with their lack of transparency and underreporting of victims. Government officials have hypothesized that the “actual number” of Indigenous women that are victims of disappearing or murder is “far higher.” Studies also find that in the court system itself, “‘language and translation difficulties, inadequate and insensitive defence representation, pressures to plead guilty and racist stereotypes” all are disadvantages that Indigenous people face in the justice system. The issue is not just that Indigenous women are less likely to receive media attention, but that when they do, justice is seldom served in the courts. 

Solutions: Fair Reporting, Urgency, and Transparency

This article is not the first to urge Canada to re-evaluate its approaches to these crimes. Numerous organizations have called upon the government to actively change its procedures and protect the lives of Indigenous people. One organization, now called Red Dress Stories, created a website archive to honor the lives and stories of Indigenous women who have gone missing or murdered. Additionally, the Native Women’s Association of Canada has started numerous initiatives to reduce violence against Indigenous women. Despite these efforts, however, the government has yet to make active efforts to change their policies regarding these issues. 

This article contends that Canada needs to address the fundamental issues in their processes by implementing the following: first, a national public database that promotes transparency and accountability for the police force, and second, a system to enforce news sources to accurately and fairly report missing or murdered Indigenous women.

A national public database would force cases to remain open until solved within a reasonable time, as well as generate awareness on which women are missing or victims of trafficking or murder. It would also allow families of these victims to provide information on their loved ones and be updated on the progress of their cases being solved. Additionally, enforcing news sources to fairly report these cases can include police sending records to these sources for publishing, continued public support for accurate news, and continued accountability by continuously collecting data on the proportion of Indigenous vs. non-Indigenous victims reported on.

These proposed measures target some of the key weaknesses of the current system and seek to strengthen it through transparency, urgency, and accountability. Despite efforts from various groups and years of discussion, reform has been continuously stalled by a lack of urgency. Awareness and continued pressure from civil societies, organizations, and the public are critical to gaining the needed support from the government to implement these suggestions and draw attention to the situation. By making data on these women more transparent and holding their abusers accountable, women like Angotigirk and Rich can finally have a fair chance at seeking justice through a system that has repeatedly let them down.

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Vigil for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG), Image sourced from Flickr | CC License, no changes made

Việt Nam has officially announced its candidacy for re-election to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for the 2026–2028 term. The move comes during widespread criticism of its human rights record during its current tenure on the council. The announcement has reignited debates about the legitimacy of the UNHRC and whether countries accused of violating human rights should be allowed to influence global human rights policies. Given Việt Nam’s history of human rights abuses, the United Nations and the Human Rights Council have failed in their global service by allowing the country to run for immediate re-election.

A Troubled History of Human Rights Violations

Việt Nam’s human rights issues are deeply intertwined with its political structure and history. Since gaining independence from French colonial rule in 1945, Việt Nam has been governed by the Communist Party of Việt Nam (CPV), which has maintained tight control over all aspects of society. While this centralized authority initially helped unify the nation, the Party leadership abuses this trust to violate human rights and oppress its people. As the Foundation for Economic Education puts it plainly, “a government that is giving you things can take them away.” 

Since its independence in 1945, Việt Nam has continuously altered their Constitution. Compared to the original Constitution in 1946, sections containing provisions on human rights have been pushed back, altered, or even removed in its later incarnations.¹ Of the reported crimes, the most common issues include police mistreatment of suspects, politics being distorted by the judicial system, and limited privacy rights.² Việt Nam now uses its socialist regime as justification for its abuses of human rights and political enemies. Pro-democracy activists are normally subjected to surveillance and harassment while police are sent to squash protests while censoring journalists. 

Việt Nam’s approach to human rights has been characterized by widespread restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and association. Independent media outlets, labor unions, and civil society organizations are banned, leaving little room for citizens to challenge the government or advocate for change.³ Pro-democracy activists are frequently subjected to surveillance, harassment, and imprisonment under vaguely worded laws such as “propaganda against the state” or “threatening national security.”

One particularly alarming case that drew international press attention occurred in May 2022 when a prominent human rights defender, Truong Van Dung, was sentenced to six years in prison for giving interviews to foreign media outlets and possessing banned books. Following his arrest, he was held incommunicado for more than nine months and denied access to both legal counsel and family visitation.⁴ During his trial, he additionally claimed that two officers at the Hỏa Lò Prison had beaten him and left him with severe pain, for which he was also denied medical help.⁵ Such incidents highlight the government’s intolerance for dissent and its willingness to use the judiciary as a tool for political repression. The U.S. Department of State has also criticized Việt Nam’s electoral process, describing the May 2021 National Assembly elections as “neither free nor fair.”

These practices have drawn condemnation from human rights organizations worldwide. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called out Việt Nam for its failure to uphold basic freedoms, while Amnesty International has documented numerous cases of arbitrary detention and torture. Despite these concerns, Việt Nam secured a seat on the UNHRC for the 2023–2025 term—a decision that sparked outrage among activists and observers who questioned the council’s commitment to its mission.

The UNHRC’s Membership Dilemma

Việt Nam’s bid for re-election raises broader questions about how membership in the UNHRC is determined. The current UNHRC is organized through regional bodies in which Việt Nam is one of thirteen countries representing the Asia-Pacific States region. 

Critics argue that the inclusion of nations with poor human rights records undermines the council’s credibility. China, Ethiopia, Cuba, and other authoritarian regimes have also secured seats on the council despite facing accusations of systemic abuses. This pattern has led many to question whether the UNHRC is capable of fulfilling its mandate to promote and protect human rights globally.

This makes sense when realizing how relatively simple the process for joining the council is: any United Nations member state can declare candidacy and secure a seat with an absolute majority vote from the General Assembly (97 votes).⁶ There are no formal vetting procedures to assess candidates’ human rights records or ensure they meet certain standards. Without oversight, countries accused of egregious violations can gain influence over international human rights policies.

The lack of a formal process of declaring candidacy for the council is far more than just symbolic; it is telling of how little the United Nations guarantees that members are vetted for the positions they apply for. For example, just within the Council, there are numerous members who have debated against the use of Human Rights Defenders.⁷ The UNHRC has proven that its member countries don’t need to care about human rights to join. Instead, they can have complete influence on global human rights by passing a simple majority vote. Very rarely do countries not get elected if they declare candidacy. The last Member Country to be denied a bid to the Council was Saudi Arabia, an anomaly which came as a result of election to that regional body being actually competitive for the first time in years. 

Suspension from the council is even rarer and requires a two-thirds majority vote from the General Assembly. To date, only two countries—Libya in 2011 and Russia in 2022—have been suspended due to extreme actions that violated UN principles. Even when member states undergo a Universal Periodic Review every 4.5 years to assess their progress on human rights issues, enforcement mechanisms remain weak.

Việt Nam’s Controversial Candidacy

Việt Nam’s announcement that it will seek re-election has sparked renewed criticism from activists, experts, and international observers. Even since Việt Nam committed to an “active, constructive, and responsible role” in their next term, its image as a defender of human rights is sullied by its past and present actions. Many argue that Việt Nam’s continued presence on the council tarnishes its legitimacy and diminishes public trust in its ability to advocate for human rights. 

Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang, director of BPSOS (Boat People SOS), an international human rights organization focused on Southeast Asia, suggested that Việt Nam’s bid serves political purposes rather than a genuine commitment to improving human rights. According to Thang, Việt Nam aims to “prove to its people that it has a good reputation,” push back criticism from other countries and human rights defenders, and build closer economic ties with the West. This isn’t far from what Radio Free Asia also hypothesizes: that Việt Nam wants to spite human rights defenders who believe they should not have a seat. Regardless of true intention, Việt Nam’s primary goal is to legitimize their role in the council amidst the pushback and secure another term. 

Such tactics are not unique to Việt Nam; other countries have been accused of using their positions on the council for political gain rather than meaningful reform. Australia faced similar criticism during its 2018–2020 term when activists accused it of performative participation rather than substantive advocacy.⁸ Despite outright slander from media and pushback from citizens of the country itself, the UNHRC still allows these countries to submit claims for candidacy. Việt Nam is not the first, and certainly not the last, country to take advantage of the eerily few qualifications needed to join the council. This begs the question: why does the United Nations, an organization that prides itself on its credible international reputation, allow countries that disregard human rights to create international standards for human rights?

The Broader Implications

Việt Nam’s re-election bid underscores a critical challenge for the United Nations: balancing inclusivity with accountability and maintaining legitimacy. While diversity among member states, especially those who falter in their ability to uphold pristine standards for human rights, can foster dialogue and collaboration across different perspectives, it also risks undermining its credibility. And when the UNHRC has multiple countries that have severe offenses on their human rights, they need to draw a line to ensure effective decision-making for international human rights. 

The UNHRC was established in 2006 as a successor to the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights, which faced similar criticisms over its lack of membership criteria.⁹ However, nearly two decades later, it is clear that these structural flaws persist—most notably the absence of rigorous standards for candidacy and the inclusion of countries who consistently violate what the council stands for. Yet, despite the obvious complications that the UNHRC has in its very foundation, they have made little to no efforts to respond to the community’s requests for accountability. 

As debates continue over Việt Nam’s suitability for re-election, some experts call for broader reforms within the UNHRC itself. These could include stricter vetting processes for candidates, more frequent reviews of member states’ performance, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to hold violators accountable. Some argue for the dismantling of the council as a whole in hopes of overhauling the corruption and replacing it with a new system. Leading countries such as the United States have openly condemned the UNHRC dating back to 2020, and the new Trump Administration has withdrawn from the council completely. Should the UNHRC not respond to these calls to action, they run the risk of losing legitimacy and standing as a council in general. 

Proposed Measures for Rejoin

Given Việt Nam’s track record, many experts believe that its candidacy should be contingent upon concrete reforms aimed at addressing its human rights violations. The United Nations should acknowledge the shortcomings of the country and only allow Việt Nam to rejoin under certain circumstances. First, Việt Nam should release arbitrarily detained activists who have been imprisoned under vague charges such as “propaganda against the state.” This step forward would prove Việt Nam’s commitment to free press and acceptance of criticism. The government should also publicly denounce excessive force by law enforcement officials and take steps to address corruption within the judicial system, namely its frequent physical abuse of detainees. Additionally,  Việt Nam should formally commit to upholding international human rights standards during its term on the council and accept suspension if it fails to meet these obligations.¹⁰ These measures would signal a genuine commitment to reform while helping restore trust in Việt Nam’s government and its role within the UNHRC. 

While Việt Nam needs to be held accountable for their actions by the council, the UNHRC also must reform parts of their system, specifically in regards to candidacy, if they wish to retain legitimacy on a global stage. To target the issue of retaining legitimacy, the UNHRC should create a set list of qualifications for countries to run for the council. Some of these criteria should include that countries should not have any accusations of human rights violations on mainstream media networks. Additionally, the UNHRC needs to create stronger review systems. The Universal Periodic Review takes place every 4.5 years and uses only three documents to determine if a country is violating human rights. They should create a new review system that not only reviews countries more frequently, but also more closely. And although they review countries, there are few mechanisms to ensure that countries are following the UNHRC standards. These include authorizing commissions of inquiry and treaty-based bodies. However, there is little accountability if these countries are found to violate standards. The UNHRC should commit to enforcing their standards and upholding proper discipline if they are violated. 

Conclusion

Việt Nam’s candidacy for re-election poses significant ethical questions about how global institutions, such as the UNHRC, should operate. Should a country accused of systemic abuses be allowed to shape international human rights policies? And if so, what safeguards can be implemented to ensure accountability?

For now, Việt Nam faces mounting pressure from activists and international observers who demand tangible reforms before it can reclaim a seat on one of the world’s most influential human rights bodies. As these debates unfold, they will likely shape not only Việt Nam’s future but also broader discussions about how the United Nations as a whole can better uphold their principles on an international level.

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: The Allee des Nations with the Flags of Member Countries at United Nations Office | Image sourced from Pexels | CC License, no changes made