The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Adopting Nationality" Published in the Washington Law Review
What happens to children adopted from abroad by American parents and left without U.S. citizenship?
I am pleased to share that my article with Cassandra Burke Robertson entitled "Adopting Nationality" recently appeared in the Washington Law Review. It is the latest in our series of articles on citizenship that have been published in the NYU Law Review (2019), Vanderbilt Law Review (2020), North Carolina Law Review (2021), and Texas Law Review (2022). This is the final 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 does not cover everyone. 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.
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
This sounds like a worthy task for better Americans.
I've always thought it was an interesting subject, and I'm looking forward to these articles.
What “articleS”? As far as I know, this is it, here. And didn’t you notice that it’s not informational but is just pure propaganda in the “Think of the CHILDREN!” vein? Manta doesn’t even tell us what automatic citizenship requirements she wants eliminated.
So leaves you out, "Coach"
I honestly don't see how it is possible for an adopted minor child NOT to be a US citizen because you have to be one to get a Social Security Number, and you need the dependent's SSN for both tax deductions and earned income credits, along with income-based things like WIC and child medicaid (which is called something else).
Dr. Ed 2 forgot to invoke his mantra.
You can get a social security number if you’re not a citizen.
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10023.pdf
I am surprised that an adopted child of citizens might not be a citizen (where their non-adopted child would be), but unlike Dr. Ed 2, I don’t just assert things I would like to believe are true. The following link says that such adoptees “automatically” become US citizens, but scare quotes are scary.
https://www.ssa.gov/people/immigrants/children.html
Well, since your selected quote didn't directly address this fact pattern at issue, I took a look at the underlying documents you linked.
First one: "Generally, only noncitizens authorized to work in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can
get an SSN."
Second one requires proof of citizenship, and refers non-citizens to the first one (which is scoped as I mentioned and doesn't say anything about children in any event).
So to my eye, neither one shows that an adopted minor non-citizen can get an SSN. Did I overlook it?
The third link, posted in a reply, was originally in my first post, but three links would put it in moderation, so I edited the first post and added a reply. It was there an hour before you posted, so yes, you overlooked it.
The quotation addressed the question of claiming an adopted child for tax purposes before they have a social security number.
Your third link supports Ed's original point, not yours. If you really did make those posts at the same time, it puts you in a really weird position of mocking his point and then turning right around and agreeing with it.
1. You can get a social security number without being a citizen.
2. You can claim adopted children for tax purposes in advance of getting a social security number.
3. "automatic" seems a bit suspicious; I am unclear from the original post if the issue is with those who were adopted before that law, or if there are other qualifications for later adoptees. But it does not follow from Dr. Ed 2's misinformation about social security numbers.
I can mock you because your "points" are "quibbling", and not the first trip down that path.
Wow, talk about "quibbling":
Per your own sources, not for an adopted child. Strike 1.
Per your own sources, only "while the adoption is still pending" -- which has nothing to do with the child's citizenship status and eligibility for a SSN post-adoption. Strike 2.
There's no misinformation -- just you bending over backwards trying to concoct some. Ed and I are both old enough to remember the 7 million children that disappeared in 1987 when the IRS first started requiring a dependent's SSN to be included on the return in order to claim that dependent. You may not be. In any event, that requirement remains to this day save your nitty adoption-pending corner case, which makes for a solid strike 3.
I can see that you are indeed a grandmaster of quibbling. My points were straightforward; I agree that it is surprising that adoptees of citizens would not be citizens, but Dr. Ed 2's assertions about social security numbers were incorrect and therefore not a valid basis for that conclusion. But A for effort!
Except for the pesky fact that they actually are correct in all material aspects, which I explained in detail and you've offered nothing but "nuh uh -- quibbler!"
But I respect your choice to go down swinging.
"In all material aspects" is some top shelf quibbling. Still peeved about how easy it was to find that Zyklon comment, I guess.
Weirdly enough, that fact (which again you haven't even tried to cogently rebut) means you're the one left quibbling over the handful of corner cases. I sorta doubt you're one of them, but it wouldn't shock me if there are lawyers out there who truly believe the 1st and 99th percentiles are situationally interchangeable.
Squirrel time! Now you're SERIOUSLY grasping at straws.
Your quibbling is otherwise inexplicable.
I'm going to interpret this to mean you agree with the authors and children adopted by U.S. parents should get U.S. citizenship. And based on that interpretation, I agree with Dr. Ed about something.
But, to be fair, this seems like such a no-brainer, it's hard to imagine the constituency that would be against granting citizenship to adoptees in the normal course of things.
Yes, one can imagine some sorts of fraud, but age limits on the adoptions to which the law would apply and other rather simple measures would seem to easily able to manage the vast majority of possible "abuse" of such a system.
article: "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."
It would not occur to me to share this thought-free "popular belief". I wouldn't put it past open borders types to empower whatever authorities that recognize adoptions (do they even have to be US ones?) to hand out US Citizenship to whomever they recognize as adoptees, but the idea that the Federal power to naturalize should be handed so freely to who knows who is crazy. You can adopt some foreign "child" (we haven't seen that term abused before, have we?) with AIDs or other expensive medical condition and put the US taxpayer on the hook for its medical expenses just because you want to? Really?
Hard to tell which bogeyman you find most terrifying, the hypothtical open-borderers or the hypothetical child with AIDS (who may secretly be a teenager.)
Bogies aside, as Gandydancer observed in another post, the blogger excerpt is not precise as to the nature of the complaint about the status quo, and is confusing expounding about it. She talks about children being “entitled” to citizenship, but it appears these are adults who were not retroactively granted citizenship by the 2000 CCA. Yet she continues talking about this injustice as if it applies to (implied young) children going forward. Maybe so, could just be sidedoor DACA advocacy (“who were brought to the United States through no choice of their own”).
Found it:
"However, this law left out all of the past adoptees whose parents never completed the naturalization process and were over the age of eighteen when the Child Citizenship Act became effective."
Parents never completed the process. So it's really not the law's fault, but we need to make the law even easier because of the incompetence of those (not) following it. The other grievance, as suspected, as not making the CCA retroactive enough, sidedoor DACA.
I really don't have a problem with improving the law to minimize such things in the future. What I object to is the moralistic blame shifting. Like I wrote above, if you're savvy enough to navigate a foreign adoption, citizenship shouldn't be any more difficult.
I do have some sympathy to the specific cases cited in the paper, however, I'm also a bit dubious of these sob stories about adoptions that don't become official until after the adoptee turns 18. Reading the various cases, it isn't really clear whether it's the bureaucracy not doing its job in a timely manner and/or making it difficult, or the adopting parents and/or agencies being sloppy.
It makes me generally curious about the immigration status of such juveniles brought into the U.S. for adoption. Because that's the controversy here: brought into the country under the age of 18, their citizenship status not resolved before they turn 18, for reasons not clearly explained beyond their adopting parents didn't complete the process.
So, what would Jesus do?
Jesus: “Adopted AIDS baby, screw you!”
Yeah, I agree this is something that most of us (ouch, Gandy) would cheerfully get behind. The status quo seems particularly cruel when juxtaposed with the oft-debated but currently settled scenario where the child of two non-citizens gets birthright citizenship simply because they're inside an arbitrary geofence at the time of birth.
The important issue arises when the adoptee becomes an adult: will he or she be successful in navigating dating apps?
That's a question that's likely to get the usual rather low number of comments for "Strangers on the Internet" posts.
Quoted article: "... To address this problem, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA) was enacted to automate citizenship for certain international adoptees, but it does not cover everyone."
THIS article is remarkably silent on the question of, who, exactly, is currently left out and will get automatic citizenship if the proposed law change is agreed to.
Here's what the current law says:
"8 U.S. Code § 1431 - Children born outside the United States and lawfully admitted for permanent residence; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired
...
(a)In general
A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1)At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2)The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3)The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence."
So, which of these requirements is being relaxed? The "at least one parent" bit? Or maybe "lawful admission". (Adopt a starving African! Or maybe an illegal?)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1431
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Citizenship_Act_of_2000
Thanks. This is a phony issue.
Something similar happened to my grandmother. She was born in what is now Poland and emigrated to the US, with her family, as a small child. Her parents were naturalized but apparently assumed, falsely, that their children would automatically come along with them. My grandmother married a Belgian stuck in New York City due to WWI. After the war, she made plans to go with him to live in Belgium, for which she needed a passport. She was then shocked to discover that she was not a US citizen.
So presumably she qualified for a Polish (or, given "NOW Poland", some other) passport.
This was a problem at the time, why?
(That it would probably become a problem in 1939 if she wanted to return to the US goes without saying.)
I’m not sure what country she was a citizen of. I think that she was born in what was then Austro-Hungary but after WWI became Poland. I don’t know if that entitled her to Polish citizenship, or possibly Austrian citizenship. Nor do I know what it would have taken for her to obtain that passport or how Belgium treated those who held it. Apparently, grandma thought it was enough of a problem that she took another approach: she pretended to be three years younger than she actually was and to have been born in New York City. On this basis she applied for a US passport and got it. After her death, my family learned that this is why she lied about her age.
After the Nazis invaded Belgium in 1940 she used her US citizenship to return to the US, where she lived for the remainder of her life.
In your example (which doesn’t seem to match the original post’s issue), I’m confused as to why people who were not U.S. citizens but went through the naturalization process wouldn’t also have explicitly also put through children through it at the same time.
Assuming the children would somehow also be naturalized, just because they the parents were, is an awful big assumption. Would have been prudent to be proactive and inquire somewhere along the way about the status of any children.
Likewise for the U.S. citizen adopting a foreign child, frankly. Having a really hard time discerning what “loophole” is being closed here to prevent such a miscarriage of justice. I would expect anyone skilled enough to navigate foreign adoptions to be knowledgeable in all aspects of the law, including citizenship status for the adoptee.
Just like the Padme/Anakin meme: my adopted child will be an American citizen, right? Right?
This makes me wonder about myself. I am adopted. My parents got me very young, about 6 weeks old, through Catholic Charities. Probably about 30 years ago I was at a local restaurant and struck up a conversation with the waitress who bore a striking resemblance to me. It turned out she shared my birthdate, was adopted on the same day as me, through the same attorney and charity. I always thought there was a good chance she was my twin sister. She had actually researched herself and learned that she had been born in Ireland, so I suppose there is a chance I was too. I do not have an original birth certificate, just one printed up by the state. There is no place of birth listed, that part is just blank. Now that my mom is gone it may be something worth looking into.
Fine with me to get automatic citizenship, as long as the adopted children are of European descent.
No. Usually the child is bought from parents in a Third World country. It is a form of child trafficking.
I was born in England and adopted by an American couple as an infant. I was naturalized when I was 7 years old, well before the age one needs or gets an SSN. I remember going to court, I remember the judge asking me a couple of questions out of a study book I'd been given, which I believe I answered correctly (though I doubt my citizenship would have been denied if I hadn't.) It seemed like a fairly simple process to be naturalized.
I spent my junior year of college in London. I entered the UK on a British passport, because Britain's attitude toward people born in the UK is that if you're born there, you're a citizen. A fellow who lived in my dorm was born in the US to English parents. He lived in the US until he was about 5, when the family moved back to England, where he became a UK citizen. When he turned 18, the US revoked his US passport because he had taken out citizenship elsewhere. This struck me as unfair. I think, in some respects, the US tends to overthink it's stance on citizenship.
Surely, the author jests. There is no reason the alien adopted children of citizen parents should avoid nationalization through normal channels. If aged 18 or less when adopted, they can demonstrate parental responsibility for their welfare during the time required for residency, then pass the immigration test. Otherwise, they can be examined and admitted as any other legal immigrant may. If I had to register for the draft at age 18, why should these children not have to pass an immigration examination at that age?
Because they probably have no connection to any country but the US, do not speak the language of the country of their birth and are not familiar with it. It would be cruel to deport them from the country in which they have grown up to the foreign country in which they happen to have been born.