Don't Revise the CCA2000; Stop Deportations

Removal of non-citizen adoptees has gotten a lot of attention again in the U.S. because of Adam Crasper's impending removal hearing. The CCA's main problem is that it limited the protection to those who were younger than 18 at the time when the act became effective and to those whose adoptions were finalized. Many are now calling for automatic citizenship for all adoptees, regardless of age.

Action to prevent his removal is necessary, and fortunately his case is getting a ton of press, but the answer is not a revision of the CCA2000. The answer is to work for fair and just comprehensive immigration reform in line with all other immigrant rights organizations and activists. In the meantime, advocates and activists should be asking for the quicker blanket deferred action for adoptees, modeled after the actions the DREAMers got the Obama administration to enact.

There are many problems with just amending the CCA2000. First, an amendment will not pass through both houses of Congress in time to save Adam. Second, I don't think that goes far enough, leaving too many still vulnerable to deportation, and lastly it takes away our choice about naturalizing.

Here's my proposal:

• Automatic immunity from deportation for all who were sent to the US to be adopted, including those whose adoptions were not finalized, and those who were not adopted like the babylift cases.
• The choice to naturalize without the criminal background and health checks
• Naturalization processing fees waived, including the biometrics and medical exam fees
• Return of deported people who had been sent to the US to be adopted

Of course the first and most pressing concern is protecting those who were sent to the US to be adopted from removal. We must remember that it is not only Koreans who will be affected by an amendment or change to intercountry adoption laws. This becomes even more pressing as the Guatemalan wave comes of age, as they will be most vulnerable to profiling as immigrants. Fortunately, the majority were admitted to the US on IR-3 visas, and they are covered under the current CCA, but there are some who will not be covered, as the rampant mishandling of the Guatemalan adoptions gives me little hope that they were all processed legally and fully. As Kathryn Joyce pointed out, a lot of the adoption happening from Latin America (including Haiti) and Africa were instigated by fundamental Christians with megafamilies, and in many cases little sophistication regarding immigration matters. 

Furthermore, the Babylifts of Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Cuba, etc. resulted in many children being sent to the US, ostensibly to be adopted, but many were left in foster care instead, and unnaturalized. These people need to be protected as well. Finally children and babies sent to be adopted but whose adoptions weren't finalized for any reason are not currently mentioned in either the original CCA2000 or amendment proposals. 

Removing the choice of citizenship was one of the reasons cited when adoptees campaigned for dual citizenship with their adoptive countries and South Korea. They acknowledged that removing this choice was an injustice. Let's not advocate for the same injustice. Making U.S. citizenship automatic probably removes the choice for adoptees from other countries, not only those from ROK. However, we should advocate for removing the blocks impeding naturalization from those who do wish to change their citizenship. Many adoptees struggle financially or with medical conditions.

The current fees to naturalize include the naturalization application, biometrics (to prove identity), health screening, and other things like shipping, photos, and notaries. There are several medical conditions which could make a person inadmissible or disqualify her or him from naturalization such as communicable diseases, mental illnesses, and addiction. 

The current laws also require anyone who has committed various misdemeanors or felonies from being ineligible for naturalization and can send them into removal proceedings. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA1996) makes some offenses especially likely for adoptees deportable offenses, including voting without citizenship and claiming to be a citizen by applying for a US passport without being a citizen. 

Like us, many DREAMers, adults who were brought to the US when they were children but who are now undocumented, got the right to stay in the US with work permission. They can get social security numbers and driver's licenses and join American society for the most part. Although this measure is volatile (the next administration can cancel it just as easily as Obama enacted it) it would "save" Adam. The experience that the DREAMers and immigrant rights' organizers have should be an asset to the adoption community, but we've repeatedly refused to support them or ask them for help. 

Any legislative action should also allow those who already have been deported to return to the US. Currently about 30 publicized cases or so have resulted in people who were adopted or who were sent to the US to be adopted being removed. Let's not forget them.

SOURCES:
http://poundpuplegacy.org/deportation_cases

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-10948.html

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/what-expect-green-card-medical-exam.html

http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/09/explainer-why-it-costs-immigrants-680-to-apply-for-naturalization/

Adopted boy at center of immigration dispute

The case is more than tragic, argued the Guatemalan ambassador to the United States — it's a symbol of the ongoing national and international debate about what to do with immigration policy in America. "We believe this is a very unfortunate result of the problems of immigration policy in this country," said Ambassador Francisco Villagran de Leon, who attended the arguments before the court and has been providing support to Romero. "Children of undocumented immigrants should not be given up in adoption just because they are here illegally." Romero was one of 136 alleged undocumented immigrants picked up at a raid of a Barry County chicken processing plant in May 2007 and later charged with various offenses related to the illegal use of false or stolen Social Security numbers. While Romero was in jail, her child, an infant at the time, was passed around among family members before eventually being adopted privately by the Mosers.

The full article is here.

Thanks to Ethica.

Response to the REPAIR Proposal by Chuck Schumer

I feel strongly that this legislation is a bad proposal. I also realize that it's trying to play to the various political stances so that it has a chance of passing by appearing tough on "illegal immigration". I don't think the proponents of comprehensive immigration reform should support this bill based on social justice criteria. It is too narrowly focused and short-sighted. Schumer really isn't in favor of humane reform.

1. Border security
Personally, I think that allocating funds for increased border control that restrict the movement of labor is misguided. NAFTA is a free trade agreement and we should have a matching free labor agreement and instead funnel our limited resources to combating drug smuggling, human trafficking, and arms dealing which would also mean dealing with the demand for these things that Americans create. Militarizing the border sends a message of aggression to the rest of the world, threatens the physical safety of American citizens who may be mistaken for unauthorized border crossers, may have a detrimental effect on wildlife in border regions, and may injure otherwise law-abiding people who would be unable to access or navigate bureaucratic procedures for entry of the U.S.

  Internal security
Anyhow, I think that the requirement of fingerprinting of foreign nationals does little increase the security of the U.S., especially given that some of the most egregious terrorist acts perpetuated within US borders has been committed by US citizens. Therefore, all American citizens, resident aliens, and visitors must be fingerprinted and checked by authorities for criminal ties and records. Of course this would be impossible to pass politically, so instead we should think of a less invasive, more effective way to protect the U.S.by funding law enforcement and first responders' such as police, firefighters, and EMTs rather than immigration enforcement.

2. Deportation & Detention
Any legislation that does not also guarantee the right of detained people to legal representation within reasonable proximity to their normal residence should be considered a bad proposal. Whether people are here with visas and green cards or completely without status, the current practices of moving detainees to places far from family, legal representatives, and other supportive community while in the custody of what amounts to the prison system is unjust and inhumane. The law should also grant the same right to speedy resolution for immigrants that it does for accused criminals.

3. Employment
Since most immigration is fueled by the economic needs of people, encouraging economic growth in socially responsible ways would be a more effective way to end competition for highly skilled and unskilled jobs by American labor and foreign workers. The U.S. should partner with local businesses abroad to create jobs that would improve the quality of life globally and in the US businesses and government should fund more education to produce quality high-tech workers in the US., including doctors and nurses. The employment and labor situation does not exist in an immigration vacuum and the push and pull factors cannot be mitigated by immigration enforcement.

4. Family reunification
The other major reason for migration according to the Migration Policy Institute is family reunification. Current definitions of immediate family reflect a nuclear family bias which does not even acknowledge step-children, let alone same-sex partners, extended family, and biological family of adoptees. For this reason, I think family reunification visas should be scrapped in favor of a system which would allow American citizens and permanent residents to petition for anyone for a certain amount of individuals, rather than an arbitrary list of people who the US government designates as "family".

5. Current unauthorized immigrants already in the U.S.
This legislation does not really spell out what the process or fines would be. I don't think I can form an opinion without know that. There should be provisions for low-income immigrants in regard to any proposed fines and fees. The language of this law also implies that immigrants without authorization do not currently pay taxes. This language should be revised to reflect the reality that immigrants do already pay taxes and should be credited for it. It should also reflect provisions that would fund English classes since people who wish to stay in the country have English language skills. What does that mean, exactly? What are "basic citizenship skills"? I think that the definition of these "skills" has to be more clearly defined.

6. Commission on Wartime Treatment of European Americans, Irish, and Australians
This clear favoritism and bias for presumably Caucasian, English speaking people is unjust and reminds of the worst laws of the past which blatantly discriminated against Asians and other non-white/non-European immigrants in the past. Although it will be effectively inconsequential, including this language and continued favoritism because of political pandering, is an insult to the majority of people who seek to immigrate to the US since we mostly come from Latin America, Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa.

What’s the purpose of national borders, citizenship, and immigration laws?

Devil's Advocate: What's new?

Involuntary Immigrant Adoptee: Well there's been a lot of discussion about the new law that allows dual citizenship for adoptees from South Korea [ROK] and the Arizona law that was just signed which will obligate everyone, especially Latin@s and Asians, to carry identity papers with them that proves that they are authorized to be in the country.

DA: Why is the new ROK law so important? Korean nationals have been naturalized in the U.S. for decades while keeping their South Korean citizenship.

IIA: Those who do that are women or men who already completed their military obligation. Men who had dual citizenship before they did their time in the military had to renounce their ROK citizenship if they were going to enter the country because if they were found to essentially be draft dodgers, they would be compelled to serve and/or penalized for not serving.

DA: So, the obligations of citizenship in the ROK were heavy.

IIA: Yes, ironically, though, orphans were historically barred from serving. This is essentially made them non-citizens because socially and legally men who didn't do their military service were blacklisted occupationally and socially.

DA: Then it's understandable that Koreans would seek American citizenship since the obligations of U.S citizenship are quite few: compulsory registration for the draft for men and jury duty. And it's relatively easy to become an American citizen, isn't it?

IIA: Citizenship is conferred on people in 3 ways. In the U.S. and most of the "New World" (North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand) citizenship does not equate with nationality. If you are born in the countries where jus soli is recognized, you're a citizen. If you're talking about "Old World" nation states, then there's probably a blood requirement, as well. Korea, Japan, and most European countries require that an individual's nation is also congruent with their citizenship. This has caused a lot of debate and problems in countries where large numbers of former colonials immigrated to a country or where there's been a historical community but no citizenship conferred on "foreigners'" for generations. The U.S. uses both jus soli and jus sanguinis, which recognizes children of citizens to be natural born citizens as well. The third way to become a citizen is to be naturalized. The new dual-citizenship law of ROK acknowledges our right to citizenship based on both jus soli and jus sanguinis. It sees that our naturalizations may have been involuntary. We didn't renounce our ROK citizenship intentionally.

DA: So intentionality is important? What about people who are in the United States without authorization? They intentionally disregarded our laws! Why should we confer citizenship on people who have no respect for our laws?

IIA: The difference is intentionally renouncing your citizenship and acquiring one based on the chance of where you were born is big. Which citizenship you happen to be eligible for seems quite arbitrary to me. Borders have changed and people switched from being Mexican citizens to American citizens while remaining in their historical homelands. "They didn't cross the border; the border crossed them." People who have the resources come to the United States to give their children American citizenship at birth but those children often grow up outside the U.S. in their parents' countries and have no real sense of being American. Some adoptees are now granted citizenship based on jus saguinis (that's another topic!) and considered native born but it was chance that had made them Americans. They were simply the ones next up in line for adoption. (Sorry, it wasn't fate.)

As for respect for our laws: Laws that are inhumane and unjust should be disregarded. Laws that allowed slavery, made miscegenation illegal, segregated schools, and excluded the Chinese were all disregarded because it was wrong.

DA: Who decides what's right and what's wrong?

IIA: People of conscious. People reacting to xenophobia, racism, nationalism, and protectionism are clearly not people of conscious.

DA: How do you know who are "people of conscious"?

IIA: Here's a quick test to see where you really are: It's 1882. Do you want to exclude the Chinese? It's 1921. Do you support the law that will bar Southern and Eastern Europeans from entering the country? It's 1965. Do you want to impose quotas on the Western Hemisphere for the first time? If you answered yes to any of these questions you're not answering because you think that "those people just broke the law". You're supporting the law's enactment. You're rationale is flawed.

DA: So the laws that closed the border are wrong in your opinion?

IIA: People who have changed location now are being persecuted because they've been displaced by countries that have free trade agreements (NAFTA but no freedom of movement of the labor force. Why doesn't NAFTA have a freedom of movement for the people in the bloc like the EU does? What reasons are there to enforce a border? Is that separate from the issue of citizenship? Especially when there are so few obligations of citizenship for U.S. citizens?

On the other hand, think about what we give up if we stop the enforcing the borders. The money we'd save significant amounts of money by stopping ineffective patrolling. We would funnel money away from snakeheads and coyotes who may abuse or abandon their charges. We could refocus that money on stopping drug traffickers and arms dealers. The incentive for violence along the border would be lessened. What about terrorism? Well, terrorists have been home-grown or entered the country with visas. Border patrol has never stopped a terrorist before or after a terrorist plot was discovered. And a legalized work force would enable people to demand their rights as workers without fear of deportation. Ready-made, natural labor allies! 

DA: OK, you criticized international adoption and defended illegal immigration. Do you want to talk about gay marriage, abortion, global warming, universal health care, or evolution?

IIA: Uhhhhh......

Stateless Adoptees

This article about an Mexican adoptee who may be deported has some inaccuracies in it,* but I'd like to comment on the citizenship status of international adoptees and pose some questions.

I think that an issue that wasn't explored is also important. Adoptees sent to foreign countries with travel visas that state that the purpose for their trip was adoption may have lost their citizenship of their birth countries. If they're not naturalized in their adoptive countries, and not considered natural-born citizens, they may be stateless, violating one of the rights identified by the U.N. in Principle 3 of the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child [which] asserts that "The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality." (Wikipedia article: Statelessness)

Male children adopted from South Korea, for example, were routinely stricken from national registries of citizens which meant that they were not obligated to serve the compulsory military service that all Korean men must do. Are those men who are not naturalized citizens stateless now? In the article, Ms. Cohen was allegedly born to parents who neglected her. It's possible that she wasn't registered in Mexico given her young age at the time of her adoption. Is she really a citizen of Mexico? ROK and Mexico has a well-developed civic culture compared to other "source" countries of adoptable children. Children coming from countries where the adoption industry has matured faster than the general civic culture may face greater problems trying to establish their citizenship.

Adopters often advocate for special treatment of their adopted children. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 is one example. It was argued that their parents are U.S. citizens, so their children should also be indistinguishable from other children born outside the U.S. to American citizens, like those who are in the military or serving in the Foreign Service. I don't know why the final bill excluded children who entered the country under the IR-4 and those of us adopted well before the CCA was law.

Ironically, I have heard cases in which deportations were avoided because the birth country refused to acknowledge the citizenship of an adoptee and the U.S. had already declared the adoptee deportable. While this keeps him or her in detention, it does keep the adoptee on U.S. soil. This may be preferable to being sent to a place that has been made unfamiliar and strange because of international adoption. The article says that Cohen doesn't speak Spanish. She risks being sent to a country where she has no family or friends. For some people, deportation is the worst case scenario. Worse than being imprisoned without a lawyer or a trial as ICE detainees are.




*A green card is not a visa. It's a Permanent Resident (Alien Registration) identification card. Marrying a citizen does not convey citizenship for foreign-born nationals within three years; it's only after three years can people who are married to citizens begin to petition for citizenship. Children adopted after 2000 only become U.S. citizens if they enter the country under certain visas, which many are ineligible for, so they still must be naturalized.