Intercountry Adoption as a Migratory Practice: A Comparative Analysis of Intercountry Adoption and Immigration Policy and Practice in the United States, Canada and New Zealand in the Post W.W. II Period

Abstract

The United States immigration and intercountry adoption policies and practice are compared with those of Canada and New Zealand. In the post World War II period, both the United States and Canada have been significant as receiving countries for intercountry adoptees, while New Zealand has proportionately been one of the least significant receiving countries in the West. Intercountry adoptions were addressed in legislation and incorporated into immigration criteria and procedures in the immediate post war period in response to the displaced children of Europe. The early immigration legislation for the migration of children for adoption tended to be reactive and temporary. By the 1970s, there was an increased demand for intercountry adoption, and permanent provisions were established in immigration legislation and criteria. Despite the endorsement of this practice through immigration policy, no national policy corollary that addressed the welfare of these children emerged in the United States or Canada. In contrast, in New Zealand, immigration policy and criteria has been shaped by a national policy on intercountry adoption as a practice since the 1960s. This article traces the development of immigration policy and intercountry adoption policy and practice in all three countries. It is argued that ultimately, with respect to policy priorities and practice, all three countries have prioritized national needs and well being over the ‘needs and welfare’ of child migrants for adoption.

Adoption After Cancer: Adoption Agency Attitudes and Perspectives on the Potential to Parent Post-Cancer

“…Inter-country adoption has surfaced as a common means to parenthood for many individuals in industrialized nations, expanding options for parenthood of children from a variety of cultural and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Indeed, the United States has been a major receiving country for inter-country adoptees since World War II, and the US is characterized as the number one “receiving” country for transcontinental adoptions [6–8]. Between 1998 and 2008, the number of children adopted from other countries has increased from 15,583 to 17,438 [9].…”

The Quiet Migration Redux: International Adoption, Race, and Difference

“…vi Lovelock (2000) suggests that in this period, humanitarian tendencies were primary, but after 1970, they were combined with additional pressures – declining fertility in Western countries and a decrease in the population of adoptable infants domestically. vii The tendency to interpret international adoption as a benevolent, humanitarian act colors public commentary, and many believe that countless orphans in poor, war-torn or disaster-affected nations need the permanent homes that international adoption to well-off countries can provide (see Graff 2008).…”

“…Davis, drawing on Lovelock (2000), identifies a set of “push” factors that vary depending on the time period and source countries for internationally adopted children. War and violence, economic or political instability, population policy, son preference, and AIDS have all served as “push factors” (Davis 2011).…”

“…As Lovelock (2000:910) puts it, international adoption “is instigated and achieved by individuals who are motivated by individual concerns and needs…within a particular domestic/international/political context.” By context she refers to the fact that this demand is not being met by sources that previously responded to it. Those once-productive sources include fertility (receiving countries typically have low fertility rates), xiv domestic adoption (in countries where this is an option it is often seen as undesirable for complicated reasons addressed by Gailey 2010 among others), or formerly-productive international sending countries for adoption (Davis 2011; see also Selman 2002).…”

“… ii Lovelock (2000:933) has even observed that in Canada, international adoption was encouraged in the late 1980s and early 1990s “as a means to increase the proportion of younger persons in the total Canadian immigration intake,” tying it directly to “domestic demographic concerns.” …”