Dual Minority Status: How International Law Fails Migrant Youth
In 2017, Shahraz Kiane, a refugee living in Australia, tried three times to bring his family to safety but was denied each time on the grounds that one of his children had cerebral palsy and would therefore represent a ‘significant cost’ to the country. In desperation, he set himself on fire outside Parliament House in Canberra and eventually died from his injuries. His family was never admitted to the country. His case is exemplary for one of thousands that exposes a global legal framework that systematically denies children their rights and access to justice.
As the Commission on the Status of Women prepares to convene this March under the theme of access to justice, the global community must address a significant shortcoming in the international protection regime: the ongoing legal invisibility of migrant children, especially girls and those with disabilities. Although international law recognises children as independent rights-holders, the intersection of gender, migration and/or disability often traps children in a 'protection blind spot', meaning that their specific experiences of harm go unredressed. Existing justice frameworks are systemically discriminatory in the enforcement of child protection. Meaningful child protection, therefore, requires shifting towards "child-friendly" justice frameworks that integrate international legal standards, ensuring that migrant children are treated as children first and foremost, regardless of their status.
The vulnerabilities of childhood intersect with the legal disabilities associated with non-citizenship, resulting in a dual minority status. The term refers to the intersectional challenge faced by migrant children, where the vulnerabilities associated with childhood (age) are compounded by the legal disadvantages of not being a citizen (nationality). This 'double jeopardy' often results in migrant children being treated as migrants first and children second, effectively stripping them of the protections guaranteed under international law. This is evident, for example, in discriminatory asylum and legal recognition processes. There is a profound disparity in the enforcement of international protection for children compared to adults. Research indicates that separated child asylum seekers are statistically less likely than adults to receive refugee status, often because legal systems fail to recognize child-specific forms of persecution, such as child recruitment or forced marriage. Until recently, in some jurisdictions such as Italy and Greece, there was no formal asylum procedure for separated children, leaving them in a legal 'limbo' until they reached adulthood, at which point they were vulnerable to deportation.
Secondly, the protection blind spot is evident in the overuse of punitive enforcement mechanisms. Although international standards such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulate that detention should be a last resort, it is estimated that as many as one million children worldwide are affected by immigration detention. Systemic discrimination is evident when states justify the incarceration of children as a 'protective' measure against traffickers, when in reality these children are subjected to harsh conditions, including handcuffs, shackles and prolonged isolation. Such enforcement priorities often override the 'best interests of the child', resulting in severe psychological trauma and physical withdrawal.
Furthermore, access to justice is prevented by intersectional vulnerabilities such as gender or disability. Mechanisms for enforcing child protection often ignore the compounding vulnerabilities of these specific subgroups. For migrant girls, environments such as detention centres are particularly dangerous, as they exacerbate vulnerabilities to human trafficking, sexual exploitation and physical violence. Safe reporting is often hindered by guilt and shame, as well as a lack of female police officers and specialised legal aid.
Lastly, procedural barriers demonstrate how migration status can prevent access to child-friendly justice mechanisms. The enforcement of migration laws often creates a 'climate of fear' that prevents children from accessing justice. In many systems, there is an absence of 'firewalls', which means the strict separation between public services (such as schools and hospitals) and immigration enforcement. Without these protections, undocumented children and their families are reluctant to report crimes or access healthcare for fear that their information will be shared with enforcement authorities.
What needs change?
Governments should install legal "firewalls": Prohibit the sharing of personal data between health and education providers and immigration authorities to ensure children can claim their rights without fear of deportation.
States need to implement mandatory child-friendly justice: Implement standardized procedures for free, specialized legal representation from the moment of first contact with the justice system.
Data disaggregation: International organisations must invest in a global study to collect age-, gender-, and disability-disaggregated data to identify coverage gaps and ensure that no subgroup of children remains invisible.
In support of these goals, MYCP is establishing a Youth Committee on Migration and Displacement Data. This initiative aims to place young migrants at the centre of the conversation, ensuring that data is used to empower children and close the gaps in the international protection regime. We invite you to stay tuned for further updates as we work toward a world where every child is treated with the dignity they deserve, regardless of their status.
References
1 Crock, M. E. (2025). International Law and the Protection of Migrant Children with Disabilities. Laws, 14(5), 78.
2 Bhabha, J. (2003). More than their share of sorrows: International migration law and the rights of children. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 24, 301.
3 McLeigh, J. D. (2013). Protecting children in the context of international migration. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1056-1068.
4 Bhabha, J. (2003). More than their share of sorrows: International migration law and the rights of children. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 24, 301.
5 CRC Committee’s General Comment No. 6, para. 74.
6 Bhabha, J. (2003). More than their share of sorrows: International migration law and the rights of children. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 24, 301.
7 McLeigh, J. D. (2013). Protecting children in the context of international migration. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1056-1068.
8 Bhabha, J. (2003). More than their share of sorrows: International migration law and the rights of children. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 24, 301.
9 Crock, M. E. (2025). International Law and the Protection of Migrant Children with Disabilities. Laws, 14(5), 78.
10 McLeigh, J. D. (2013). Protecting children in the context of international migration. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1056-1068.
11 Council of Europe. (2025). Protecting the Rights of Migrant, Refugee and Asylum-Seeking Women and Girls: Practical Guide for public authorities.
12 IOM. (2019). International Migration Law Information Note.
Author
Thea Rawe
MYCP People and Protection Advocacy and Campaigns Officer
