Welcome to the Hague Compliance and Training Forum

In view of the upcoming implementation of the Hague agreement, I would like to inquire about the issue of international adoption by permanent residents (green card holders). Currently, U.S. immigration makes it impossible for permanent residents to adopt internationally due to a the requirement for a two years cohabitation outside the U.S. prior to immigration which, in turn, causes the permanent residents to lose their immigration status (!). (Please refer to e.g. [url=http://www.hooyou.com/adoption/bypr.html]Adoption and Immigration[/url] for more information) Since there is no two years cohabitation requirement for biological children, it follows that adoptive children are discriminated by U.S. immigration compared to biological children. The discrimination of adoptive children is prohibited according to the Hague agreement. I was wondering when (or if!) this obvious distortion will be properly addressed in the foreseeable future. I sincerely hope that the current situation will finally be corrected.

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

Ok, first some background about me: I am Israeli, have adopted domestically (was forced into it by U.S. immigration) and I plan to adopt an older child from an Indian orphanage. U.S. immigration prohibits that from me by all costs. God forbid, I might adopt an Indian orphan! I have several issues with what you are saying in this post. I will tell you what I think and I'll be quite frank here. :camo: 1. Yes, there is and should be a distinction between citizens and permanent residents. I agree. But why do you think would it be "unfair" to grant adopted the same visa status as their adoptive parents?! I am permanent resident. My biological kids are entitled to permanent residency (not citizenship!) - why should a child that I adopt internationally NOT be entitled to the same status, i.e. permanent residency? Why this discrimination? Note, I am not asking for citizenship here. I am asking for same immigration status. That's all. 2. You wrote "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". I AGREE 100%. Relative adoption should be prevented and THAT is what the immigrations laws should address. You write "in part" and hence I feel that there is more behind it than relatives adoption because that issue could be solved ... So what else is behind it? :hypno: The current only partially effective in preventing relatives adoption. If someone is determined to adopt their relatives and if there are no regulations against that, the net effect is that it will just postpone the adoption of relatives by five years - until the adopters have their citizenship. So relatives that were age 13 and older will not be adoptable anymore by the time the prospective adopters get their citizenship. Those who were 13 and under can now be adopted. Is that what we wanted to achieve?! What do I suggest should happen in international adoption for permanent residents? Without investing five minutes thoughts, I came up with: - Permanent residents can adopt internationally ONLY via certain agencies selected by U.S. immigration. The agencies will include a process for making sure that the child adopted is no relative of the adopting parents. - AND: The adopted child will get the immigration status of the adoptive parents. :cheer: 3. Now to your three options: "The first option, of course, is to become citizens". Yeah. That's what I'm doing now. Just hanging in there, in limbo. In two years, when I'll have my citizenship, all will be different, over night. Go figure. "The second option is to adopt domestically". Oh my! Done that. I am Jewish and "worse", I am an active member of a Hindu temple. That is a big problem in this country because adoption is largely in Christian hands and/or birthmothers are looking for Christian parents. I can only imagine how hard it would be for Hindus, for example. Please take your time and think about that point. Have you ever asked yourself that question or tried to see it from our angle? Then you say "Unless they are absolutely wedded to the notion of adopting a child from the same ethnic heritage" etc. Keep in mind, we have to get chosen by a birthmother. Do you think things are that easy? Let me tell you form experience, it is not easy if you are a minority! At the end, you say "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." (My immediate thought was "Uh yes, and what about those of us who would not have a decent life?") We are permanent residents and "permanent" means we came here to work and pay taxes (we actually pay the salaries of U.S. immigration, LOL!) and stay permanently. The forefathers of American citizens were immigrants at some time, just like we are now. They came here to work and stay. Their offspring have been born here and enjoy the fruits of immigrants' hardships. Oh no, Sharon, we are not going back because of adoption. To summarize, I am a firm believer of when there is a will, there is a way. The reason why the current immigration law is what it is because nobody took enough time to study the situation and construct a come up with a fair solution. I suspect that the real reason is that there is no will since it touches only a marginal population. A one-size-fits-all law was issued and to hell with us green card holders and our feelings. We can take this discussion offline. I can give you my contact details if you want and we can talk some more.