The Reality of Current US Immigration Policy 37 migrant children. The egregious 2018 family separation border policy would doubtless have elicited more vigorous international protest had the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child been afforded oversight. The United States has, however, ratified other international treaties that generate powerful obligations towards persons within its jurisdiction irrespective of their citizenship status. They include the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),6 the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,7 and the 1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.8 Treaties are considered the supreme law of the land under the US Constitution, so government actions have to be consistent with provisions in ratified treaties.9 The implications of these obligations in relation to Central American children seeking protection in the United States from violence at home are multiple. One is the obligation not to subject children to arbitrary detention, whether in an immigration or any other context. Prolonged incarceration of children not charged with any criminal wrongdoing, with or without parents, violates this prohibition. Indeed, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the international agency charged with overseeing implementation of the Refugee Convention and the protection of refugees and asylum seekers, has explicitly held that “children should not be detained for immigration related purposes, irrespective of their legal/migratory status or that of their parents, and detention is never in their best interests.”10 The Human Rights Committee, the treaty body that oversees implementation of the ICCPR, addressed the issue of detention of a child and parent seeking asylum specifically in a case it adjudicated. It explained that, as a general rule, detention “should not continue beyond the period for which the State party can provide appropriate justification.” Because Australia, the country in question, failed to show that detention was the least restrictive strategy available for achieving its intended objective, it had violated its obligations.11 Another treaty obligation binding on the United States is the prohibition on subjecting asylum seekers, including children, to punitive treatment.12 Separating children from their parents clearly falls afoul of this prohibition, as does forcing 6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html. 7 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137, www .refworld.org/docid/3be01b964.html. 8 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a94.html. 9 U.S. Constitution, art., VI, cl. 2. 10 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Position Regarding the Detention of Refugee and Migrant Children in the Migration Context, January 2, 2017, www.refworld.org/ docid/5885c2434.html. 11 Baban v. Australia, United Nations Human Rights Committee, } 7.2 U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/78/ D/1014/2001 (2003). 12 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137, www.refworld .org/docid/3be01b964.html, art. 31. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914994 Published online by Cambridge University Press