One of the big issues in immigration law is adoption.  Everyone has heard of international adoptions—Americans going abroad and bringing home orphans from around the world.  That route, however, is much harder now.   There are two other adoption options that can be used for immigration purposes, but they are much more limited and are generally unavailable to most Americans.   Finally, there are people who do adoptions that will not work under immigration law.

The orphan adoption route that most people are aware of is governed by the Hauge Convention.   The Hague Convention was adopted to bring certain standards to the international adoption practice.   The momentum behind the Hague Convention came from a number of sources.  There was money in the adoption business and this led to fraud and child trafficking, including people buying children and then selling to orphanages so they could be adopted as orphans.  In the typical bureaucratic way of doing things, it was felt that if there was a lot more paperwork, there would be less fraud.   Then there was anti-western sentiment that was developing and various countries didn’t want to be known as a place where children were at risk and didn’t like the idea that America was adopting their children.   The Hague Convention was designed to appease the suspicion of these countries, but, even so, many countries have limited or stopped the adoption of orphans.   Finally, over the past several decades there has been an increase in the idea that children must be protected against parents — and this also contributed to the Hague Convention —- with the idea that if the paperwork is increased, somehow children will be protected from bad parents.  The result is that under the Hague Convention adoption has become difficult and less common, and, perhaps children are protected more from possibly bad adoptive parents, but they certainly are adopted less and instead remain in difficult and dangerous situations in their homelands with little hope of adoption.

There are still some countries which are not party to the Hague Convention where orphan adoptions can proceed outside of the restrictions of the Hague Convention.  However, many of these have also stopped adoptions — theoretically to protect the children, but I think that often the adoptions have been stopped for political purposes.  In my opinion, there has been a real war against children around the world, and restricting adoptions is one way that war manifests itself.

As mentioned above, there are two other options for immigration through adoption.    One is if a child from a non-Hague country is in the US and is adopted here.   That child may be able to obtain citizenship two years after the adoption.

The other option is an adoption done abroad by an American or someone who lives in the other country.  After two years the child can obtain United States citizenship.

Finally, I referenced adoptions that will not work for immigration purposes.   If the adoption does not fit one of the above-listed options, then the adoption will not work for immigration purposes.

One last thing to also know about adoptions.   If they are effective for US immigration purposes, and the adoptive parents are US citizens, the child does not need to immigrate.  They can, sort of, directly apply for US citizenship.   If the child is coming to the US or is already in the US, they need to go through the immigration process, but, instead of a green card, they automatically become US citizens.   If they are outside of the US and will be living with their parents, the parents can apply directly for citizenship without going through the immigration process at all.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consult an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Gunnar Armstrong