The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Adopting Nationality" to Appear in Washington Law Review
Why children adopted from abroad should be recognized as U.S. nationals
I am happy to share that my latest law review article "Adopting Nationality", co-authored with Cassandra Burke Robertson and available here, has been accepted for publication in the Washington Law Review. Here is the abstract:
Contrary to popular belief, when a child is adopted from abroad by an American citizen and brought to the United States, that child does not always become an American citizen. Many adoptees have not discovered until years later (sometimes far into adulthood) that they are not actually citizens, and some likely still do not know. To address this problem, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA) was enacted to automate citizenship for certain international adoptees, but it did not cover everyone. Thousands or tens of thousands of adoptees still live under the assumption that they are American citizens when in fact they are not. While laws have been proposed to fill the gaps left by the CCA, none have yet passed.
This Article argues that children adopted by U.S. citizen parents are entitled to permanence of nationality. It explores how state and federal authorities deliberately and irrevocably sever the ties of transnational adoptees to their families of origin to promote the interests of the adoptive family. The U.S. adoption framework prioritizes the unity of the adoptive family over maintaining connection to the child's family of origin. Adoptees often struggle to understand and define their identity on various levels, including their personal, national, and ethnic identities. Citizenship precarity adds an extra layer of psychological difficulty for transnational adoptees, making the child's position in society even less secure. If a child can be adopted into an American family but not accepted as a member of the American nation, then the child will never have the full stability that adoption is intended to offer.
The United States can and should follow through on the promise of permanence to transnational adoptees by awarding them the status of U.S. nationals. This status would enable them to remain in the United States, travel on a U.S. passport, and fully participate in American society. The United States Code already contains an overlooked provision that awards nationality status to those who, although not formally citizens, nevertheless owe permanent allegiance to the country. Interpreting this statutory language to cover adoptees who do not otherwise qualify for formal citizenship reflects the reality that children adopted into American homes are permanent members of this society. Indeed, we argue that the right to nationality is grounded in the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. Recognizing nationality will ensure that adoptees—who were brought to the United States through no choice of their own—cannot be removed from it.
For those interested in the subject matter, I also recommend following the work of the Adoptee Rights Law Center and Adoptees for Justice.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I assume the author intended to write "U.S. citizens" here in place of "nationals". It matters because there is an existing, separate status of "U.S. national" which applies to people born in "unorganized" U.S. territories such as American Samoa, and a U.S. national under that definition is not free to move to the U.S. without going through the immigration process.
The abstract above does not make it clear but the authors do discuss this in greater detail in the linked article and they do clearly understand the difference and are intentionally arguing for automatic nationality (with the limitations as you and apedad describe) and not automatic citizenship.
I'm still a little fuzzy on why they think automatic nationality is the right answer but I suspect that it might be just to avoid the political controversy of "immigrant citizenship".
(Adding to jdgalt1 who beat me to it!)
This article seems to conflate U.S. national and U.S. citizen when they have different, legal meanings.
"The only significant differences between a U.S. citizen and a non-citizen U.S. national are that a non-citizen U.S. national may not vote in federal elections or hold any federal elected office. They have the same rights to live in the United States as citizens do, and this right is irrevocable, unlike a Green Card holder (LPR status). A U.S. national also has the right to a U.S. passport (the annotations page will show that the holder is a U.S. national and not a citizen.) U.S. nationals are also entitled to the consular protection of the U.S when abroad, and the right to apply for citizenship by naturalization after just three months of residency."
https://www.usimmigration.org/articles/u-s-citizen-vs-u-s-national-what-is-the-difference
But jdgalt1 is wrong about this: "a U.S. national under that definition is not free to move to the U.S. without going through the immigration process."
Actually, they're free to move here, it just doesn't make them citizens.
It might be good policy.
But there simply isn’t any entitlement. Whether to make aliens citizens or not is a matter of discretion.
Interesting way to put it. Counter-argument - Is it an entitlement of the adoptive parents even if it's not a separate entitlement of the adoptee?
Good way to look at it. Adoptive parents are taking on a lot of work and responsibility, the least this country could do is to simply the process of naturalization. The simplest way to do that is to make it automatic.
Sure the argument here is that Congress has used that discretion in a way that grants nationality (and that doing so was good)?
TIL: the word "precarity."
I used that word in an article years ago. An editor replaced it, thinking it too fancy. I replaced that editor a few months later.
I would also like to see these adopted children considered naturalized from birth and so be eligible to hold the office of the President. It is unlikely this will happen, but the possibility should be open for them.
Would you graft an age limit on that? Someone brought as an infant seems entirely logical, versus adoption of someone who is 17.99 years old and has no prior connection with the US.
I don't see how you get naturalized from birth at any time after your birth. We shouldn't humor the law's pretense to be able to reverse the flow of time and alter the past.
Legal fictions are not as uncommon as you think.
Importing that technology into constitutional law sounds like a pretty bad idea though.
Surely the better course would be to repeal the vestigial natural born citizen clause altogether?
Either enforce it or repeal it. There is no legitimate third option for a government whose every officer has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Purporting to give naturalization retroactive effect is just a backdoor way of achieving through statutes what can only be done by amendment.
I think they're awfully common, and generally a bad idea. The law should not embrace convenient lies, even if they seem minor. It erodes the legal system's devotion to the truth.
This, of course, was discussed in 2008, because the law conferring John McCain (born 1936)'s citizenship was only passed in 1937.
Yes. I actually pointed out at the time that he wasn't constitutionally qualified to be President. But nobody could get the courts to care.