Here’s some weekend updates on previous #flipthescript/NAM blogs this month.
(1) S2275: Good news for international adoptees in the US–but let’s read the bill first. (November 14, 2015)
(1) The text of the HB 2225, The Adoptee Citizenship Act of 2015 is now online and the bill is as advertised. Not bait and switch. There is one troublesome section, however, regarding the dispositionn of deportees with criminal cases pending that will need some discussion and interpretation, but other than that it’s good to go!
Here is the troublesome language:
C) CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK.—Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), an individual described in subparagraph (A) may not be issued a visa unless—
“(i) the individual was subjected to a criminal background check; and
“(ii) if the background check conducted pursuant to clause (i) reveals that the individual has committed a crime that was not properly resolved, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State coordinated with relevant law enforcement agencies to ensure that appropriate action is taken to resolve such criminal activity
What exactly does this mean?
And speaking of the bill, one of my readers brought up a point that I’d not thought of. I’m posting it here in full.
Daniel G commented:
Im happy for this bill and what it stands for but I disagree that this bill is just for the adopted. This bill is flawed and leaves 1000’s in limbo. What about those who were not adopted but could have benefited from the Child Citizenship Act being retroactive. There are 1000’s of people out there who were already over the age of 18 when the CCA went into effect and should have been made automatic citizens when the the law went into effect. If your going to amend the act dont give preference to those adopted but work to make the entire Act retroactive. There are 1000’s of people whose 1 parent was a citizen and they qualified for citizenship status under the Act but were aged out. Both adopted and non adopted kids who were either in immigrants status or work permit status. They should fix the entire Act to effect all who the act addresses not just the adopted. Why fix part of it when you will leave 1000’s of other people in a different category pretty much stateless as well. Thanks
This is a good question. I’ve not been involved in the legislative process on this, but my guess is that it has been crafted to apply to international adoptees only to get passage (after many years of hot potato bouncing. My guess is that the bill is limited to international adoptees because the plight of the persons Daniel G writes about have legal and political complications and ramifications that would impede passage of the bill as it is currently written.. Daniel G makes an excellent point, and I support passage of a bill to grant citizenship to aged-out sector he addresses.
Anyone else care to take a shot at it?
Baby Kaylee: Help get her back home. Donate! (November 21, 2015)
(2) The response to the Baby Kaylee case has been tremendous. Not only is the press picking it up, but donations are soaring. Since November 19, well over $17,000 has been raised. Go to Get baby Kaylee home to her Daddy go-fund-me page to help.- Let’s get that baby back where she belongs!