Groups commemorate 25th anniversary of the CRC by urging end to child immigration detention

Twenty-five years ago the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted, and with it the world made a promise to children: to uphold their fundamental rights, to promote their human dignity, and to safeguard their best interests in all actions. Today, the CRC remains the most widely and rapidly ratified international human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement.

Despite this near-universal commitment, countless millions of children continue to be impacted every year by illegal, arbitrary and harmful immigration detention. Whether detained themselves or impacted by the detention of their parents or guardians, migrant children experience significant harm as a result of immigration detention practices.

Regardless of the reasons for detention or the conditions in which children are held, a number of studies have shown that detention has a profound and negative impact on child health and development. Even very short periods of detention can undermine child psychological and physical well-being and compromise their cognitive development. Reports on the effects of immigration detention on children have found excessive rates of suicide, suicide attempts, self-harm, mental disorder and developmental problems.

In commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the CRC, the International Detention Coalition (IDC), together with the Global Campaign to End Child Immigration Detention and hundreds of member and partner organisations worldwide, is calling upon states to end the practice of detaining children simply for the lack of proper immigration documents. Instead, we call upon states to urgently implement non-custodial, community-based alternatives that protect and care for migrant children.

The CRC Committee has clearly stated that detention of children on the basis of their or their parents’ migration status is a child rights violation. In 2012, the Committee made a landmark recommendation that:

“Children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their or their parents’ migration status. The detention of a child because of their or their parent’s migration status constitutes a child rights violation and always contravenes the principle of the best interests of the child.”

Worldwide, UN experts, child and human rights advocates, and governments are increasingly recognizing that there is no justifiable reason for the immigration detention of children and families. Depriving a child of liberty on the basis of their or their parents’ migration status violates international law, but more importantly, it harms migrant children and families.

Today, in commemoration of the 25th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the IDC together with our members and partners makes the following recommendations to States around the world.

1. Reaffirm the right to liberty of refugee, asylum seeker and migrant children and families.
• States should clearly affirm in the CRC and UPR State review processes that they reaffirm the right to liberty and security of children and families;
• States should encourage one another to cease the immigration detention of children in the CRC and UPR State review processes, as well as through bilateral and multilateral policy discussions;

2. Enact legislation and policies to expeditiously and completely cease the immigration detention of children and their families.
• States should review existing law and policy to ensure that they prohibit child and family detention based upon the migration status of children or their parents/guardians;
• If necessary, States should revise existing legislation or enact legislation prohibiting the detention of children based upon their or their parents/guardians’ migration status;

3. Adopt alternatives to detention that fulfil the best interests of the child and allow children to remain with their family members and/or guardians in non-custodial, community-based contexts while their migration status is being resolved.
• States should develop child-sensitive alternatives to detention that fulfil the best interests of the child, and respect child rights to liberty and family;
• Alternatives should fundamentally be concerned with child care and protection rather than security or migration control, and any restrictions imposed must be strictly necessary and the least restrictive measure possible;
• States should work with civil society partners to implement ATD pilot projects for child migrants and their parents/guardians;
• States should release any children and their parents/guardians currently in places of immigration detention consistent with the best interests of the child;
• States should monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of child and family ATD projects to ensure that the best interests of the child is always a primary consideration.

Together we can end child immigration detention.  For more information, visit www.endchilddetention.org.