The author of this article has some very good points. I am concerned that the international adoptees will have to face issues similiar to these. I have heard countless stories of adoptees being sent back to their countries after having been raised in this country. Why? Their paperwork was not done properly.
They get sent back to these countries that they really don't know anything about nor even speak the language any longer. These adoptive parents will be forced to deal with the issues of this. Their child that they have loved and raised will be gone without their protection. I really believe that the federal government needs to step up and investigate adoption as a whole. There have been countless stories of adoption gone wrong, natural parents having their children sold without their consent, and many others. Adoption in all areas - foster, domestic and international. Its got to happen. For the sake of the adoptee, we must make changes in it.
Here is the link. Here is the story.
Article published Jun 5, 2008
Born here, but not American
By Tracy Warner
Editorial Page editor
Party platforms usually aren't worth much. There is nothing binding about them. Candidates are not beholden to their policy positions, and are often grateful for that. Platforms are, however, an excuse for debate, or a window into the minds of the party activists who drew them up.
For Washington state Republicans, some of this state's citizens can look through that window and see the message: You do not belong.
It's subtle, but there. The just-adopted state platform includes a plank that says a desirable immigration policy would not include "amnesty or birthright citizenship and sanctuary cities." Discard issues of amnesty and sanctuary for illegal aliens, and you are left with "birthright citizenship," which immediately goes to the heart of who is legally an American, who has the full immutable rights of citizenship or the transient privileges of someone we expect to leave. It is counter to the clear language of the U.S. Constitution, traditions and common law.
Birthright citizenship, or doing away with it, is a trendy cause for opponents of immigration, and especially illegal immigration. The pertinent rule is in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." If you are born on American soil, and not the child of foreign diplomats or soldiers of an occupying army, you are a citizen of the United States, with rights and privileges equal to all others. The clause is unequivocal, as the Supreme Court has ruled.
This bothers people who believe the American-born children of illegal immigrants are citizens unjustly, and that hordes of pregnant immigrants are drawn to the United States for the sole purpose of producing an "anchor baby," a legal citizen who eventually will win them permanent resident status, or at least a welfare check.
As a motive for immigration, this phenomenon is easily exaggerated, fuel for demagoguery and doesn't come close to being cause to amend the Constitution. Beyond that, opponents of birthright citizenship are gnawing away at fundamental national principles, among them equal protection of the laws. Citizenship is granted automatically, not doled out to people who meet the changing qualifications. There is a fundamental condition — born in America, you are American. That is an ancient principle dating to English common law, made permanent in the 14th Amendment because citizenship had been denied to former slaves. Other countries, it's true, don't make citizenship so easy to come by. It depends on parentage, on pedigree, and ultimately on ethnicity. That is not the way we do it. We are a nation based on principles, not ancestry.
Of course, if people like the Washington Republicans could change the rules, it would not be retroactive. The thousands of Washington citizens whose parents are immigrants, legal and illegal, would not be cast off to some country they have never known. This is their native soil. But the attitude and implications are clear — this may be their native land, the reformers say, but it is so unjustly and they do not belong. Had their parents arrived at some future time, when the rules of citizenship have been changed, these people would not be citizens, and perhaps neither would their children. So how many generations of American births would it take to erase this original sin?
Tracy Warner's column appears Tuesday through Friday. He can be reached at email@example.com or 665-1163.