[sak9645]

I strongly doubt that the Hague Convention will have any bearing on the rights of the U.S. government to give preference to U.S. citizens in immigration matters.

U.S. citizens are allowed to immigrate children who are either adopted abroad or brought to this country under a decree of guardianship for the purpose of adoption, on an adoption visa, if they and the children to be adopted meet certain requirements. The children brought to the country in this way become automatic U.S. citizens once a full and final adoption occurs.

Non-U.S. citizens who are not married to U.S. citizens do not have the same rights as citizens with regard to many matters, including matters of adoption and immigration, and I doubt that any court in the world would say that this is unfair. Most countries in the world have laws that distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in at least some areas of life.

Non-U.S. citizens are discouraged from adopting internationally, in part because the U.S. government feels that it would lead to a situation in which non-citizens might try to adopt and bring their relatives to the country, circumventing established immigration and citizenship laws. There have been many cases in which people have tried to circumvent these laws, and no world body is going to try to prevent the U.S. from taking action to prevent efforts to violate lawfully established immigration laws.

The law pertaining to two years of residence abroad with a child, moreover, is not discriminatory, as it pertains to both citizens and non-citizens. In fact, it might be considered liberal and humane, in some ways, since it provides a route to immigration for a child who might not ordinarily be able to come to the U.S.

If a U.S. citizen adopts a foreign child, and that child does not qualify for or is denied an adoption visa (IR-3 or IR-4) -- for example, because he/she does not meet the definition of an "eligible orphan" that is in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act -- the only way the U.S. citizen will be able to bring the child to the U.S. is if he/she resides abroad for two years with the child. And if a non-U.S. citizen wishes to bring a child to the U.S. and he/she does not meet the requirements for PARENTS seeking an adoption visa, he/she, too must live abroad for two years with the child and then apply to bring that child to the U.S. under a regular visa.

Personally, I don't like the "orphan definition", and hope that it will change eventually. Under this definition, a child is deemed eligible for an orphan visa if he/she is the child of a poor single parent who cannot support him/her according to the prevailing standards of his/her country, but not if he/she is the child of a poor married couple who cannot support him/her according to the prevailing standards of their country. To me, this distinction simply does not make sense.

(The child, of course, is also eligible if he/she lost both parents to death, was abandoned, was removed from the custody of parents by a court of law for reasons such as abuse or neglect, or was legally relinquished under circumstances indicating that the relinquishment was intended to be total and permanent.)

I understand that the orphan definition was also created, in part, to keep people from trying to circumvent immigration laws by bringing relatives' children into the country under a sham adoption that was not intended to be total and permanent. Again, this was -- and still is -- a problem for the U.S., but I don't believe that this distinction between the child of married parents (or cohabiting parents, in countries that allow for common-law marriage) and single parents is a sensible way to achieve this goal.

Still, the law is on the books and is considered Constitutional. It is not discriminatory, since it applies to anyone seeking an adoption visa for a child, and actually is liberal, since it provides for an alternate route to immigration for a child who does not meet the normal requirements for an adoption visa.

My heart goes out to non-citizens of the U.S. who live here and desire to become parents by adoption. I know how strong the parenting instinct is. Still, these people are not without options.

The first option, of course, is to become citizens. I know that it is a long and difficult process, but it entitles those who go through it to all the benefits of being an American citizen.

The second option is to adopt domestically. Legal residents of the U.S. can adopt U.S. children, under certain circumstances. Unless they are absolutely wedded to the notion of adopting a child from the same ethnic heritage, or define the type of child desired too narrowly, they should be able to bring home a son or daughter in a very reasonable time frame.

A third option is for them to wait to apply for a visa to come to the U.S. until they have completed an adoption under the laws of their own country. Many of the countries from which non-U.S. citizens want to adopt, such as India and the Philippines, tend to be quite receptive to domestic adoption by citizens of those countries.

Needless to say, it is also an option for people to give up their U.S. visas, go home, and adopt. Many, though not all, of the people who come to the U.S. had a decent life in their home country and can offer their children a decent life in their home country.


Sharon