President Trump recently announced that immigrant visas from 75 countries are being frozen; “the freeze, which takes effect on 21 January, targets applicants officials deem likely to become a ‘public charge’ – people who they believe may rely on government benefits for basic needs.”

The freeze thus affects international adoptees in the process of being adopted: they are considered immigrants seeking permanent U.S. citizenship.

Temporary visas are not included in the freeze. That’s why visitors for the World Cup will be fine as well as other tourist, student, and business visas.

The freeze affects folks who are looking to be in the U.S. permanently, such as Permanent Residents (green card holders) who can work here, collect Social Security, travel internationally and return to the U.S., file taxes, and obey all laws. Green card holders over the age of 18 must carry their green cards at all times.

International adoptees typically travel with an IR-3 or IR-4 (Immediate Relative) visa or an IH-3/I-H 4 (Immediate Hague) visas.

Those adoptee visas are frozen now.

Of the 75 countries for which immigrant visas are currently frozen, about 20 are currently open to international adoption. The numbers of adoptions from those countries are for the most part small. Some of the countries have signed The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption; some have not. A list of Hague countries is here. Some have signed The Hague treaty and are not open to adoption now.

The bottom line is that the U.S. government has frozen adoption-related visas from countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Ghana, Jamaica, Nigeria, Thailand, Cameroon, Haiti, and others. I have no idea how many children are currently designated for international adoption from any of those countries. It’s probably in the low hundreds, I’d guess.

In any case, their visas are frozen, since adoptees fall into that category of immigrant seeking to be in the U.S. permanently who could become “public charges,” meaning they might need long-term institutional care or care that is otherwise long-term for basic needs, like long-term Medicaid.

Children with special needs, many of whom are adopted to the U.S., could fall into this category of potentially needing long-term care. “Special needs” is a phrase that covers correctable medical conditions (cleft palate, some heart ailments), or physical conditions which may not be correctable but are more easily managed in the U.S. than in countries of origin. These might include limb differences, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, blindness, for example. Special needs can also include emotional and developmental needs, some of which emerge over time. Trauma–such as separation from one’s mother, country, and culture; abuse and neglect; exposure to violence; natural disasters; housing of food insecurity– is often part of adoption. Obviously, not all people with special needs ever become “public charges” or need long-term care.

While international adoption numbers have declined in recent years, due to fraud, corruption, increased costs, trafficking, stricter regulations, more emphasis on in-country adoption, some countries still send children with special needs, often called waiting children (this could include sibling groups) for international adoption). I realize this is not always the case, but many of these children get far better care here than they otherwise would have.

The current visa freeze ends that possibility. There is no suggestion at this point that there will be an exception for adoptees.

What will be the outcry about this?

One reason I am curious is because of a parallel with the deportation of adoptees. International adoptees without U.S. citizenship have not been exempt from deportation.

Our country has shown virtually no interest or compassion about the notion that international adoptees, brought with the legal permission of the sending country and the U.S, to be here forever, should not be subject to deportation.

That we deport international adoptees is, to me, a shameful tragedy. It seems similarly tragic that we are now banning adoptions particularly of vulnerable children. Yet it is also consistent in terms of U.S. policy, supported by our federal government.