PRINTS Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 9, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to combat child trafficking and deter fraudulent entry by enhancing biometric data collection for suspected minor victims and criminalizing the use of unrelated children by adults at the border.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fingerprint noncitizen minors under 14 suspected of human trafficking, establishes new federal criminal penalties for adults who knowingly use unrelated minors to gain entry into the United States, and requires DHS to publicly report on these activities and related apprehensions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is crucial for identifying and protecting child trafficking victims by improving data collection and information sharing, while also deterring adults who exploit children for immigration purposes, thereby enhancing border security and child safety.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that fingerprinting minors, even those suspected of trafficking, could be traumatizing or infringe on privacy rights, and that the criminalization of adults using unrelated minors might disproportionately affect vulnerable families or individuals in complex situations, potentially complicating legitimate asylum claims.
The bill is very short and straightforward, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2, amending 8 U.S.C. 1302(c)
Mandatory Fingerprinting of Suspected Minor Trafficking Victims
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security, through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), must obtain fingerprints from any noncitizen child under 14 years old who is entering the United States if a CBP officer suspects the child is a victim of human trafficking. This collection must align with standards set by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a vital tool for identifying child trafficking victims, preventing their re-trafficking, and linking them to potential traffickers, thereby enhancing child protection efforts at the border.
Critics contend
Opponents may contend that fingerprinting minors, especially those who are already vulnerable, could be traumatizing and may not be the most effective or humane method for identifying trafficking victims, potentially leading to privacy concerns.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for robust data collection to combat trafficking against potential privacy concerns and the psychological impact of biometric collection on vulnerable children.
Section 3, adding 18 U.S.C. 1430
Criminal Penalties for Using Unrelated Minors to Gain Entry
This section creates a new federal crime for any person aged 18 or older who knowingly uses a minor, to whom they are not a relative or legal guardian, for the purpose of gaining entry into the United States. Convicted individuals face fines, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both. 'Relative' is defined as an individual related by consanguinity within the second degree.
Section 4
Fingerprint Data Sharing for Unaccompanied Alien Children
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to share fingerprints collected from noncitizen minors (under Section 2) with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) upon request. This applies specifically to unaccompanied alien children who are transferred from DHS custody to HHS custody.
Section 5
Annual and Monthly Public Reporting on Child Trafficking Efforts
This section mandates two types of reports. First, the Secretary of Homeland Security must submit an annual report to Congress detailing the number of minors fingerprinted under Section 2. Second, the Secretary must post monthly on a publicly accessible CBP website the number of apprehensions of child traffickers who falsely claimed a child accompanying them was a close relative.
Defines 'relative' as 'an individual related by consanguinity within the second degree, as determined by common law.' This narrow definition is crucial for the application of the new criminal penalty in Section 3(a).
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for defining terms relevant to a specific section.
Case for: Supporters argue this precise definition prevents ambiguity and ensures the criminal penalty targets only those adults who are clearly not close family members, thereby focusing on genuine exploitation.
Case against: Critics contend that this definition is overly restrictive, potentially criminalizing adults who are de facto guardians or extended family members (e.g., aunts, uncles, cousins beyond second degree) in cultures where broader family structures are common, even if they are genuinely caring for the child.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts the scope of individuals subject to criminal penalties under Section 3(a), potentially affecting a significant number of individuals at the border who may not meet this specific biological relationship.