Kristi Noem’s Feds Accused of Threatening Migrant Children with Dogs and Stun Guns

A shocking new accusation is now the focus of a legal battle in Washington, D.C.: lawyers claim that federal agents used fear, intimidation, and false information to coerce unaccompanied migrant children into surrendering their right to stay in the United States by signing “voluntary return” documents. This assertion is included in a motion submitted on Tuesday to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as part of a class-action lawsuit involving Guatemalan minors and a broader challenge regarding how the government manages unaccompanied children from countries not adjacent to the U.S. The document states that children were approached while still under Customs and Border Protection custody, before they had a chance to meet with attorneys or family members, and were warned that refusing to sign could result in severe repercussions.

The movement arises from continuous legal proceedings concerning unaccompanied Guatemalan minors and questions the validity of a policy that permits Customs and Border Protection to provide voluntary departure documents to children while they are still in border detention. According to long-standing federal protections, such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, unaccompanied children from countries not adjacent to the U.S. are typically sent to shelters managed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they can obtain legal assistance and appear before an immigration judge. Lawyers claim the new approach undermines these safeguards by urging children to make significant life choices within a custodial environment without proper protections or judicial supervision.

As per sworn statements mentioned in the legal document, a Guatemalan boy reportedly faced agents who “shouted, cursed, and threatened [him] with a dog and a stun gun” if he refused to sign the documents. The motion claims that he was warned he might be detained for an extended period if he didn’t agree to return to his native country. Lawyers argue that the child wasn’t permitted to speak with family members before signing. Additional statements describe minors who signed forms they didn’t fully comprehend, in some cases because of language difficulties or fear of consequences. Attorneys state that at least 13 children have been found to have signed under what they describe as coercive conditions.

The legal document also claims that the advisory form given to children includes wording meant to dissuade them from requesting a hearing before an immigration judge. The paper reportedly says: «If you decide to ask for a hearing with an immigration judge or express a fear of going back to your country, you can expect the following: you will be held in the care of the U.S. government for an extended period.» Opponents say that this kind of language, when provided to young people in custody, may be seen as a threat instead of a straightforward explanation of legal outcomes. The motion requests the court to enhance current safeguards and stop this practice while the case is ongoing.

Customs and Border Protection has justified the advisory process. In a public statement, a CBP representative stated: “The advisory document given to unaccompanied children outlines the choices available under the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding their next steps. CBP’s responsibility is to adhere to the law and ensure the safety of children. Numerous unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by traffickers and encounter genuine dangers of abuse, which is why offering a clear, legal advisory is crucial.”

It helps them recognize their rights and choices – and for numerous individuals who were trafficked or forced, going back to their family is the most secure option. » Officials from Homeland Security have not publicly commented on the particular claims regarding the dog and stun gun mentioned in the court document.

The debate intensifies as President Donald Trump encounters lower approval ratings regarding his approach to immigration enforcement. Recent data indicates that although immigration continues to be a key concern for numerous voters, most believe the measures taken are excessive. According to one recent poll, 58 percent of participants felt Trump has overstepped in deporting undocumented individuals, while 62 percent were against strict enforcement methods.

In a recent speech, Trump reaffirmed his administration’s position, stating, «The primary responsibility of the American government is to safeguard American citizens, not undocumented immigrants.» While the federal court examines whether the alleged actions breached current injunctions and child protection laws, the case has sparked renewed discussion about the boundaries of enforcement and the care of vulnerable children in custody.