Well, no wonder!

While doing some research about the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 and it's author, McLane Layton, I found Equality for Adopted Children which is the organization that McLane is the founder and president of. Her bio page says,

It was during the adoption process that McLane began her quest for equal citizenship rights for internationally adopted children. In 1995, as she was going through the adoption process, she discovered that her children would not be automatic U.S. citizens even though both she and Rusty were U.S. citizens. “Every time I would sit down to fill out my children’s naturalization paperwork, I would get offended,” she recalls. It was not right that her children needed to be naturalized. They were not immigrants, but children of American citizens!

Really, I'm not surprised. This is just one more way that adopters try to make believe that the children they adopted are "natural issue" of their bodies, with no history before being adopted. But, it shows why so many adoptees refuse to believe they are immigrants; their adopters tell them they're not!

Infuriating!

PS Notice, too, that the offense is about the adopter, not the child.

Exceptionalism Revisited

I'm glad that the issue about adopted people being deported is being discussed more, but I really hate the rhetoric around the issue focusing on 'legal' or adoptee exceptionalism. Making exceptions for adoptees or for certain other involuntary immigrants like DREAMers, isn't the answer. We need a comprehensive change in the immigration and citizenship laws that reflect justice and human rights.

In this entry from Land of a Gazillion Adoptees, this quote really bothers me:

 “I would say that the US should change and amend the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 and make citizenship retroactive for all foreign born adoptees, regardless of age.  We adoptees never asked to be adopted and sent to the US.  However, since we had no choice and we were brought to the US legally by US citizens, then we should all be granted the same rights as biological children.” — Matthew Scherer, 3/4/2012

Why is this the argument? Whether you were brought to the US legally or not, or adopted by US citizens or not should be entirely beside the point. It's only by chance, random chance, that adoptees were brought to the US and not another country. It's random who gets chosen to stay in Korea and who is imported into the US. It's political decision who the US says is worthy and eligible for citizenship, visas, asylum,  refugee status, and who is not.

Furthermore, those decisions are far from just and fair. I have said this many times, but legal does not equal moral. The moral reason for allowing adoptees and other unwilling immigrants to remain in the US are:

1. We are culturally American
2. We had no choice about our immigration 
3. Most of us have no ties, no support system in our birth countries now and few resources to survive there, including a lack of language skills
4. The US created, facilitated, and encourage people from our countries to come to the US through legal and extra-legal means
5. The US has colonized our countries and exploits them for natural resources, including labor and adoptable children
6. In the case of adopted adults, there was an implicit agreement that we would be at least minimally taken care of in our new country by the adoption system which includes the various agencies and adoptive parents. 

So, while I appreciate the support that we are beginning to get from Korea and other sending countries for automatic retroactive US citizenship, I think we should aim higher and advocate for justice for all immigrants because adoptees aren't exceptional.

MARKET WATCH: Adoption IPO

Well, not quite, but today the opening bell at the NASDAQ was rung by representatives from the National Council for Adoption. 

I guess as the 'authoritative voice for adoption' they are acknowledging the adoption industry is indeed controlled by market dynamics of supply and demand. How nice to finally some honesty from the self-appointed experts! 

Soon we may just see a return to literally putting children up for adoption and having outright bidding on orphans again. Of course, this being the NASDAQ, the auction would probably be on EBay.

The National Council For Adoption to Ring The NASDAQ Stock Market Opening Bell

ADVISORY, Feb 29, 2012 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) What: The National Council For Adoption, an adoption advocacy non-profit that serves children, birthparents, and adoptive families as the authoritative voice for adoption, will visit the NASDAQ MarketSite in New York City's Times Square. In honor of the occasion, Chuck Johnson, President and CEO, Lauren Koch, Director of Development and Communications, and Donna D. Conway, Board Member of the National Council For Adoption, will ring the Opening Bell.

Some more numbers: International Adoptees and African slaves

Some adoptees assert that intercountry adoption is the largest migration of unwilling immigrants since the transatlantic slave trade. In fact, that premise gave me the idea for this blog. 

The numbers are comparable: About 500,000 Africans were brought to the U.S.* (and the colonies that would become the US). If we accept that this website is correct, from 1970 to 1999, then 265,677 people were brought to the US for adoption. Then, to bring the numbers to include the boom years of 1999 to 2011 another 233,934 must be added, for a total of 499, 611. Now, if 1999 is included twice since we’re combining sources here, then we have to subtract 15,719 (all of these figures are from the State Department) we’re down to 483,892. But, of course, intercountry adoption in its current form started in 1954, which these numbers don’t capture. Additionally, some of these adoptions were not intercountry adoptions in the sense that most think of; they were relative adoptions. So, if we take out the relative adoptions, but add in the adoptions before 1970, I estimate we would still be in the same ballpark as 500,000. 

Now, of course the numbers of Africans who were brought to the US does not include the great number of humans who were captured but died on their way to the western hemisphere. It also should be noted, too, that the transatlantic slave trade to the US existed from 1675 to 1866, about 200 years. Intercountry adoption in its current form has been around for just about 55 years.

I’m not arguing that the experience of Black slavery is comparable to what intercountry adoptees experience. I'm just pointing out that the two groups are similar in two ways: we are unwilling immigrants (forced migrants) and we have similar numbers, currently. Adoptees will mostly likely soon surpass the number African slaves who were brought to the US. Interestingly, the source of the post-500,000 will also come from Africa, at least in part. 

Will adoptees also impact the demographics of the US in the same way that Black slavery has? 

*This website, however shows 305,326 Africans slaves coming to the US.