Tag Archives: vulnerable children

How Does the Recent U.S. Freeze on Visas from 75 Countries Affect International Adoptees?

Posted on by
1

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.

An Ethiopian little girl in a white dress walks along a road near green trees.
Personal photo by Maureen McCauley

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.

“Racial Identity” Is a Safety Issue for Children of Color Adopted by White Parents

Posted on by
2

Prior to adopting, should white parents be able to show proof that they can provide a strong, genuine sense of racial identity to their adopted children of color? Should “strong racial identity” be considered a standard of safety for transracially adopted children?

I know children of color can thrive even when raised in all-white areas, if the white parents are genuinely willing to do the hard work involved. I also know of way too many cases of adoptees of color who have struggled mightily with their racial identity, to the point of depression and worse. Some examples are here, here, and here. The recent, highly publicized case of the black adoptee in rural Idaho is especially tragic; the defendant pled guilty and received probation.

Bullying based on race, micro aggressions, racism directed at the individual and the larger racism imposed on the racial group–these are huge realities for children of color, and can be overwhelming. Many times, white adoptive parents do not become fully aware of the realities of racism until their children of color are school-age or older. A lot of damage can be done by that time.

Permanency–a permanent family–is a legitimate, important goal in child welfare advocacy. Children need families. Permanency and safety, though, go hand in hand.

To me, “safety” should mean that white adoptive parents of children of color, as well as the children themselves, deeply understand what it means to be a person of color in America. They should have multiple resources nearby, including racial role models and mentors, and have access to appropriate therapies and options for adoption- and race-related trauma, behaviors, and questions. The children may not be safe if they do not have a strong sense of racial identity and awareness.

Consider these child welfare definitions, the standards by which children are deemed to be safe or unsafe.

IMG_7018

” ‘Safety threat’ means family behavior, conditions, or circumstances that could result in harm to a child,” according to Oregon’s Department of Human Services, which, similar to other states, oversees and advocates for vulnerable children.

Could not having role models and racial mirrors result in harm to a child?

” ‘Unsafe’ means there is a safety threat to which the child is vulnerable and there is insufficient parent or caregiver protective capacity to protect a vulnerable child from the identified safety threats.”

Does an unstable, shallow, or nonexistent racial identity make a child unsafe, especially if the child is racially isolated?

” ‘Vulnerable Child’ means a child who is unable to protect him or herself. This includes a child who is dependent on others for sustenance and protection.”

Are children of color who are adopted and raised by white parents “vulnerable” if they have no contact with people who look like them, or no contact with the culture/country into which they were born?

Are the children “vulnerable” if the parents provide only white privilege and/or white fragility?

What would happen if we made “racial identity” a focal point from which children of color are placed with white parents in non-diverse areas, and demanded it as a matter of safety?

Would it mean we would work harder to better prepare and screen white adoptive parents, or to recruit more families of color for children of color, or what? Would it mean that fewer children of color would be placed with white families? Would it mean that fewer children would be adopted? Would it mean that child welfare policies would insist that white parents immerse themselves in communities of color before they had a child of color placed with them?

I say all this in full awareness of my white privilege and my own biases and failings. It’s a lot to think about, and it needs to be thought of well before adoption, for the safety of a vulnerable child.

More often, though, a child of color adopted by a white family is safe within that family, and then encounters a new, harsh world as a teen and adult outside of that bubble, a world which sees him or her only in terms of race. In our current racial climate in the U.S., that child had better be genuinely prepared to grapple with, fend off, and heal from racist assaults, large and small. Otherwise, that child is not safe.