China Daily: Obama Visits China

If you're interested in President Obama's visit to China from the Chinese perspective, China Daily has an entire online section devoted to the visit. Of course, China Daily is the "official" face that China presents to the world (in English), but it is interesting to see that and compare it to U.S. reporting about the visit.

Families For Orphans Act

Anyone here against orphans getting families? That's like being opposed to cute furry kittens, rainbows and unicorns, and Santa Claus all rolled into one!

But it depends to an extent on how you define "orphan" and how you define "family." In the new Families for Orphans Act, "orphan" is defined as a person under the age of 21:

(A) who lacks permanent parental care because of the death, the disappearance of, or the legal, permanent relinquishment of such child by both biological parents;

(B) who is living in the care and custody of an institution;

(C) whose biological parents' rights have been legally terminated; or

(D) whose country of origin has determined lacks permanent parental care.

That's a far broader definition of orphan than is currently used under any other federal statute because it only requires one of the 4 for the child to be an orphan. It doesn't have to be (A) death/disappearance of both parents AND living in an instutition, for example. A child in an institution is an orphan. But of course she is -- unless you look at what institutions qualify, and realize that it is decoupled from the need for the parents to be dead or gone:

(A) an orphanage;

(B) a children's home;

(C) a boarding school for orphans;

(D) a shelter;

(E) a residential facility;

(F) a hospital;

(G) a dormitory;

(H) long-term foster care; and

(I) any other setting in which permanent parental care is not being provided to the child.

So a child living in a shelter WITH HER PARENTS is an orphan under this act. A child in a hospital, with LOVING PARENTS at her bedside is an orphan. And I love (C) a boarding school for orphans is an institution, and living in an institution is what makes you an orphan, so being in a boarding school makes that a boarding school for orphans, so you are an orphan DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOUR PARENTS ARE ALIVE and paying only goodness knows what on tuition! I'm sure all those wealthy parents who have their kids in boarding school are thrilled to know they are the parents of orphans. (Growing up I was a weird kid, and always wanted to go to boarding school. Now I can put that dream to rest since I don't want to become an orphan!).

And what about the definition of "family"? There is none in the Act, though "permanent parental care" is defined, and is one of the main purposes of the Act. "Permanent parental care:"

A) means a legally recognized relationship between a adult and a child who is younger than 21 years of age, which is life-long and provides a caring, safe, stable physical environment;

(B) includes--

(i) domestic and international adoption;

(ii) legal guardianship; and

(iii) legal kinship care; and

(C) does not include temporary or long-term foster care, institutionalization, or mentoring.

Again, that sounds good, doesn't it? But LEGAL kinship? What about a child in Africa living with extended family? I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be "a legally recognized relationship between child and caretaker which is intended to be permanent and is evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, custody, and decisionmaking," as "permanent parental care" is defined in the Act. I doubt the grandmother in a small village taking care of her grandchildren whose parents have died of AIDS is going to have a court decree recognizing her rights. So, the kids are orphans. What about the child in Vietnam, living in an orphanage and visited frequently by his father? He does not have "permanent parental care," it seems. And living in an orphanage, he's an "orphan." And an 18-year-old who has spent her whole life in foster care with a loving foster parent in China is an orphan.

In an Act like this one, it would be imporant for the policy makers to be sensitive to cultural differences in family care and kinship care, and thus recognize that what looks temporary and unstable to Western eyes is perfectly appropriate care in another country. And, indeed, the act says, "In developing policies under this Act, the Coordinator should take into account cultural norms for each country to the extent consistent with the overall purposes of this Act."

In legalspeak, "should" is not "shall;" should isn't mandatory. And even if it were, by saying the Coordinator only has to be culturally sensitive when consistent with the purposes of the act, we're keying back into the definitions that orphan-ize everyone!

So who's this "Coordinator" they're talking about? Well, the act doesn't have any legally binding effect on other countries to turn children into orphans if they fit the Act's definitions. But what it does is set up an "Office of Orphan Policy" in the U.S. with a coordinator who will coordinate diplomacy and development about orphans, as defined, and permanent parental care, as defined. And the Act says that family preservation and unification is a goal, as is permanent parental care, as defined. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that the U.S. is essentially conditioning the provision of development assistance -- money -- on a country's agreeing with these definitions and thus orphanizing more children. Thus, more and more children than ever will be turned into "orphans," even when they have living parents and/or actively involved extended family.

Because you know what we do with "orphans," right? We find families for them. (Even if they already have family?!) And if new families cannot be found for them in their home country (the Act preserves the Hague Convention preference for domestic adoption -- how could they not?!), then the Act says they should be available for international adoption. And further development aid is available to help countries develop legislation and systems that can lead to international adoption, as well as other technical help. So basically we're incentivizing countries to turn their children into orphans for international adoption.

Here are some places you can look for more information:

Here is the text of H.R. 3070 (the bill in the House) and S. 1458 (the bill in the Senate).

Here are Ethica's concerns, and a statement of support from the Joint Council for International Children's Services.

Read and make up your own mind. I've been hearing about this proposed legislation for a while now, and had heard arguments pro and con (more pro than con out there, it seems). It wasn't until I started reading the text of the bills that I realized the true scope and meaning of this benevolent-sounding legislation.

So put me down as opposed to kittens, rainbows, unicorns, Santa Claus, and the Families for Orphans Act.

Moo Goo Dog Pan? Moo Goo Cat Pan?

Another proud Texan moment -- this time it is Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler, Texas, complaining that if we send money to China to save endangered species, we'd end up with moo goo dog pan or moo goo cat pan. Sigh.

Angry Asian Man says not funny, and provides a full transcript of the remarks.

What's this blog about?

I understand that people don't come here to read about politics. I've tried to be VERY careful about keeping on topic, even when people tell me they'd like me to post general cute stories about my kids or post about our general activities. I've said there are other blogs out there that do that far better than I can, and Lord knows there are tons of blogs out there that talk politics.

But I have to say I think current events that are relevant to adoption, birthparents, abandonment, race, and China (the things I list in the header as what this blog is about) are fair game. So I post about Angelina Jolie looking to adopt again. I post about a Dutch family looking for their child's birth parents in Nepal. I post that South Korea and Guatemala are encouraging domestic adoption. I post about the alien land laws in Florida, a remnant of America's history of discrimination against Asians. I post about China's reaction (the reaction of my daughters' country of origin) to the presidential election in the U.S. And I post about what I see as a historical landmark in race relations in the country where my Chinese children will grow up as a minority race.

And I don't see any of these things as posts about "politics." If readers think some of these topics are political, I'll ask you to read what I have written. I think you'll see that I've left policy and partisan arguments carefully to the side. And note that I have not said WORD ONE before the election to encourage anyone to vote for "my" candidate. And EVERY "political" post I've made here has been NARROWLY TAILORED to be relevant to adoption, birthparents, abandonment, race, and China.

I have no intention to post generally about politics, though I can't control what happens in the comments. In fact, I have no interest in controlling what happens in the comments. I hope people will comment freely about whatever they want to talk about. The blog is called Adoption TALK for a reason! I want this to be a dialogue. I even appreciate very much comments telling me to shut up about politics now! But appreciating it doesn't necessarily mean I'll comply.

If I think a topic is relevant to adoption, birthparents, abandonment, race, and China, I'll be talking about it here. I hope y'all will keep coming to read about adoption, birthparents, abandonment, race, and China. If you don't like what you read, say so in the comments! I've been assuming all along that not everyone is interested in everything I say (how egotistical to think readers would be!), and are skipping over the posts that they don't care about. Feel free to do that, if it hadn't occurred to you before. But again, I'd much rather you read everything, and talk about what you don't like or don't agree with in the comments.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program . . . .

China -- Wishing Obama Well

From China Daily:

Like American people on the other side of the Pacific, we are excited, too, at the landslide win of Democrat Barack Obama, who will become the 44th President of the United States of America on January 20 next year.

We wish him all the best in bringing America out of the present financial quagmire as soon as possible, and re-energize the world's largest economy with his brand-new ideas and vision. A strong US economy is in the interest of China and all other countries that trade with it.

We also hope the good momentum of a relatively amicable and constructive bilateral relationship between China and the US will sustain and extend during the incoming four years of the Obama presidency.

China Daily's English edition is usually pretty good with the English language, but this commentary has some hysterical phrases: "crushingly dreadful economic contraction;" "talk-savvy new America;" "persuaded many voters to alienate the incumbent Republican Party candidate." And how about this -- "ratcheting up investment in infrastructure and small and medium businesses in the US will yield precious jobs, and prevent its economy from jumping off the cliff!" None of it necessarily BAD English, but funny usage nonetheless!

One step forward, one back

Remember last month I posted about Florida's remaining Jim Crow law in its Constitution:

Florida is the last state in the nation still to have a constitution marked with one remnant of the Jim Crow era: a rule allowing legislators to ban Asian immigrants from owning land. This November, voters have a chance to remove the so-called "alien land law" of 1926 from Florida's Constitution. That would complete a nationwide purging of the rules once in force in more than a dozen states."What it does is eliminate the unfortunate vestiges of racial discrimination," said Sen. Steve Geller, D-Cooper City, who persuaded legislators to put it on the fall ballot after years of lobbying his colleagues.

Well, it lost. Florida voters voted NO to a constitutional amendment to remove the alien land law from its constitution, 52% to 48%. That means 3,728,731 people voted to RETAIN a constitutional provision that allows Asians to be stripped of the right to own property by the Legislature.

Of course, the provision in Florida's constitution is completely inoperative. The U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause trumps state constitutions. So the Florida law is "merely" symbolic. But what a horrible symbol of racism, intolerance, and xenophobia.

America's First Black President

Not just America's first black president -- America's first biracial president, America's first president raised in a transracial family! I doubt any reader is surprised to discover I'm giddy with delight this morning! Even if you disagree with him politically, I hope you can see Obama's election as a powerful symbol today, one that is likely to benefit our transracially adopted children.

As the NYT reports: "[His election] was just as much a strikingly symbolic moment in the evolution of the nation’s fraught racial history, a breakthrough that would have seemed unthinkable just two years ago." I'm a baby compared to some, like Congressman John Lewis, who have noted the changes in race relations during their lifetimes. But I was alive during the end of Jim Crow. I lived in Texas and Mississippi while America's South was dragged kicking and screaming into LEGALLY doing the right thing, while still resisting integration as lived reality. Ten years after Brown v. Bd. of Education tore down barriers to schooling for non-white children, I was bussed to the all-white school, away from the closer all-Black school in Mississippi. I was in junior high school -- almost twenty years after Brown -- before the first black child attended a white school in my Texas hometown. If you had told me as a child of Obama's election in my lifetime, I would have said, "Nice idea -- never gonna happen!" How wonderful to be proved wrong!

Zoe and Maya are excited today, too, though I'm sure they don't fully understand the significance. Zoe went to vote with me yesterday, and declared the experience "booorrrringggg! But the first thing she said when she woke up this morning was "Did Obama win?!" And we talked about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and what he meant when he prophesized a future where each person would be judged on character and not color.

But for them, I think, today is mostly about the winning. It was funny when we got to school today -- Zoe and her blue-eyed, blond-haired friend Rafael ran to embrace each other, saying at the same time, "OBAMA WON!!!!!" In the election held among students at her school, McCain beat Obama 4 to 1 (what can I say? It's Catholic school in Texas!), which was a bit of a downer for her. She and Rafael campaigned hard for an Obama victory in their second-grade class to no avail. Of course, Rafael's big plan was to tell everyone that McCain kidnapped people (!) and was righly slapped down hard for it! (Don't worry, I was very fair-minded about the whole election thing -- Zoe told me she was going to vote for Obama because I was, and I told her "no way!" and made her learn about both candidates, including asking her grandpa why he was voting for McCain.) On the way to her school after dropping off Zoe, Maya chanted, "Go-Bama! Go-Bama!" and thought herself very clever for thinking of it.

What does Barack Obama's election mean for our children -- and I'm not asking about taxes or terrorism! Does this change anything for them in terms of race relations? As racial minorities raised in transracial families? What are you saying in your families today about the president-elect?

VOTE -- November 4

If you haven't already cast your ballot, don't forget! Tomorrow is election day!



I always tell my students that I don't care who they vote for, just that they vote --and I really, really, mean it! I'm actually one of those patriotic, gushy, love to vote, wouldn't dream of trying to get out of jury duty, democracy-loving Americans. If you are, too, then vote!

Head's Up For Floridians

The Orlando Sentinal writes:

Florida is the last state in the nation still to have a constitution marked with one remnant of the Jim Crow era: a rule allowing legislators to ban Asian immigrants from owning land.

This November, voters have a chance to remove the so-called "alien land law" of 1926 from Florida's Constitution. That would complete a nationwide purging of the rules once in force in more than a dozen states."What it does is eliminate the unfortunate vestiges of racial discrimination," said Sen. Steve Geller, D-Cooper City, who persuaded legislators to put it on the fall ballot after years of lobbying his colleagues.

* * *
Passage is not certain. In New Mexico, a similar law had to be placed on the ballot twice before voters threw it out in 2006. That left Florida as the last state with the measure on its books.

You can read more about the Alien Land Acts here.

John McCain and the "G" Word

OK, you now know from the title that this is an explicitly political post. But this isn't just a random political post -- this is about racism and racist speech and my children from China, which is what this blog is about.

So now that you know what's coming, you can avoid it by clicking away RIGHT NOW and by not scrolling down any further! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Run Away! Run Awaaaaay!

Eight years ago, I thought John McCain was a great candidate with a compelling personal story and a maverick approach. Then he said this: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

McCain refused, at first, to apologize. He said he only meant the horrible prison guards who tortured him during his captivity during the VietNam war. He said he couldn't come up with a more polite term to call his captors. I thought at the time, "Why not call them 'my captors?' 'sadists?' 'torturers?' 'the enemy?' Why that word? Why does your anger spill over from that justifiably directed at your inhumane captors to all Asians?" As Katie Hong pointed out, he called them Asians, because that is what gook means:

Contrary to McCain's attempt to narrowly define "gook" to mean only his "sadistic" captors, this term has historically been used to describe all Asians. McCain said that "gook" was the most "polite" term he could find to describe his captors, but because it is simply a pejorative term for Asians, he insulted his captors simply by calling them "Asians" -- a clearly disturbing message. To the Asian American community, the term is akin to the racist word "nigger." A friend of mine, a white male Vietnam veteran, pointed out that veterans, especially Vietnam veterans, know how spiteful the term "gook" is. It has everything to do with labeling someone as "other," the enemy and yellow. McCain sent the message that all Asians are foreigners and remain forever the "other" and the enemy.

For what it is worth, I will point out that he did eventually apologize. But it was one of those "I'm sorry IF I offended anyone" apologies. And he said he wouldn't say it again because "some people" find it offensive. Doesn't exactly sound like an epiphany, a recognition that he was not simply angry at his captors, which was justifiable, he was also harboring some hateful attitudes toward Asians.

Some people might point out in defense of McCain that this happened 8 years ago, and that it isn't relevant today. I hope those same people see McCain's attempts to link Obama to Bill Ayers, a tenuous connection that ended ten years ago, as equally irrelevant!

I'll also add that maybe this isn't the sin of the century; maybe it isn't reason enough not to vote for a candidate you otherwise love. But if so, I think we have to ask why it's ok. Do you agree that if he had said the n-word that he shouldn't be a candidate today? Or maybe you just think he wouldn't be a candidate if he'd used the n-word because politically that would be suicide. If so, why is it ok to say gook, but not the n-word?

Or perhaps you think it is justifiable that McCain harbor negative attitudes toward Asians in light of what he experienced in captivity. Sorry, I'm not willing to give him a pass on that when he wants to be President of ALL Americans. If his experience, which was truly awful, makes him hate Asians for as long as he lives, then he needs to look for another line of work.

Here's a recent reaction from one young man to this racial slur:



I agree with him. I would find it really troublesome to have as President a man who looks at my daughters and sees "gooks."

UPDATE: I don't know what happened, but the comments disappeared! I promise, I didn't delete them! I have had trouble in the past with comments being disabled when I post a YouTube video, but comments definitely worked at first on this one. I don't know where they went. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

UPDATE UPDATE: They're back! No idea why. Hopefully they'll stay this time!

Letters to Santa

Now THIS appeals to me! Though the open records issue does not impact me as an international adopter, I heartily support legislation in the American states to provide original birth certificates to adoptees. If you watched the "Vital Records" video (and even if you haven't) and are ready for a bit of activism, here's a very, very simple way to help:

WANTED: Letters to Santa

Adoption Reform Illinois wants to raise public awareness that adult adoptees cannot legally obtain an original birth certificate in Illinois.Those who should write letters are:

adoptees

birth parents

adoptive parents

relatives, i.e. spouses, children, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and those who have found an adoptee on their family tree

friends who are aware of the need someone is feeling to have an original birth certificate

Letters should be addressed to:

Santa Claus
% Mary Lynn Fuller
109 W. Illinois St., Apt. 506
Urbana, IL 61801

Letters can be signed with just a first name or your full name. Just keep in mind that your letter could be selected to submit to the news media.

Although Christmas is a few weeks away, write now. "Santa" will deliver the letters to Vital Records in Springfield before Christmas.The more letters, the better!

Example letters but please use your own words:

1)Dear Santa,All I want for Christmas is my original birth certificate. 50 years ago when my adoption was finalized, it was sealed. I have family and friends who were not adopted and they have their OBC.Sincerely,Mary (last name optional)

2)Dear Santa,All I want for Christmas is for my wife/husband/ sister/brother/ daughter/ son/ niece/nephew/granddaughter/grandson to have their original birth certifcate. Thank you,Mary (last name optional)

3)Dear Santa,While tracing my family history I've discovered that my great-grandmother was adopted. All I want for Christmas is her original birth certificate so that I can prove lineage to join societies.Thank you,Mary (last name optional)

4)Dear Santa,My friend Sandy is adopted and has been denied her original birth certificate. All I want for Christmas is for Sandy to have it.SincerelyMary (last name optional)

The Child Savers

Adoption grew and spread in the U.S. during the nineteenth century as an outgrowth of benevolent societies established to care for poor and neglected children. "Saving children" often meant removing them from poor birth parents so they could live with parents of a higher class. There's a great documentary on one of the most ambitious projects -- the Orphan Trains -- where the New York Children's Aid Society, headed by chief child saver Charles Loring Brace, loaded trains headed west with poor children (not all of whom were actually orphans) to be adopted by midwest farmers needing an extra field hand.

I hate it when I'm seen as a "child saver." I'm sure you've all had the experience, the people who say, usually within earshot of your child, how LUCKY the child is to be adopted. You probably have the same pat answer that I have -- "I'm the lucky one!" There used to be a dean at the law school where I teach who always mentioned I'm an adoptive mom to HUGE groups of people -- graduations, student orientations. He'd list my degrees, scholarly interests, etc., just like he'd do for all faculty members, and then he'd say how wonderful I was to have adopted a child from China. ARGHHHH! Yes, I'm far more noble than my faculty colleagues who merely gave birth to their children!

And I know when a Child Saver gets media attention that I'll get more comments about what a hero/saint I am. That's why I hated to hear Cindy McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention:

It was after that I was walking through the streets of Dhaka, Bangladesh,
surrounded by terrible poverty and the devastation of a cyclone. All around me
were the children and the desperate faces of their mothers. The pain was
overwhelming, and I felt helpless.

But then I visited an orphanage begun by Mother Teresa, and two very sick little girls captured my heart. There was something I could do. I could take them home, and so I did.

Today, both of those little girls are healthy and happy. And one of them you just met
tonight: our beautiful daughter, Bridget.

Much is expected of a country as blessed as America, and our people are at work all over the globe making it a better planet, doing their part.

I can't count the number of people who have talked to me after that speech, telling me about how Cindy McCain saved Bridget, eager for details of how I saved my children. I got a little irritated with someone yesterday (it always works that way -- it isn't what this one person said, it's what the dozens before him said) who compared me to Cindy McCain. My response: ''Look, I was interested in becoming a mom. If I'd been interested in saving a child I'd have just sent 30 cents a day and settled for the letter and picture."

Probably not the best way to handle it! At least my kids weren't around. . . .

The Presidency, Part Deux

When the kids and I were talking about the "I have a dream" speech, I connected it up with the DNC nomination of Barak Obama. Zoe thought it was really cool, and said, "I want to be president. . . ." I was about to explain about the Natural Born Citizen Clause when she finished her sentence: ". . . of China!"


Oh, boy, we've got some tall explaining to do!

Every American Child Can Grow Up To Be President?

This summer, Mei Magazine asked me to contribute a short piece on the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution -- the constitutional provision that prevents our foreign-born children from being President of the United States. Mei Magazine, for children age 7 and up adopted from China, was responding to a reader letter for a girl who didn't think it fair that she couldn't be president.

Here's what I wrote:

It’s in the U.S. Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

This law that says only natural-born citizens can be president makes me mad, too. I learned about it when I was a kid and thought it was pretty dumb, because it meant that my mom couldn’t be president since she was born in France. And I still think it’s pretty dumb, since it means my kids, born in China, can’t be president, either.

Of course, most kids in America don’t grow up to be president. We’ve only had 43 presidents, after all. But I don’t like the idea of a rule in our Constitution that treats people differently just because of where they were born. It’s a way of saying that naturalized citizens are really second-class citizens, that they aren’t as loyal as birth-right citizens, that they are always a little bit foreign no matter how long they’ve been Americans. I’ve seen people treat my mom that way, getting mad at her for things the country of France is doing even though she’s been an American citizen longer than she was a French citizen. I worry that the same thing will happen to my kids.

Now I’m a law professor, and part of my job is researching the law. I decided to research the natural-born citizen clause to try to understand what it was all about. And while I was working on it, I came up with an idea for why that rule has already been changed!

The rule became the law when the country approved of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. But in 1865, after the Civil War, we amended the Constitution to add the Fourteenth Amendment, which includes the equal protection clause. It says, “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This was added to the Constitution so that the newly-freed slaves would be treated fairly under the law. But since the amendment talks about “any person,” courts have said that the equal protection clause means that we have to treat everyone fairly, regardless of race, sex, or national origin. So the equal protection clause says you can’t discriminate against someone because they were born in China.

I think that we erased the natural born citizen clause from the Constitution when we passed the equal protection clause. After all, the natural born citizen clause discriminates against people based on where they were born, and that’s the very thing the equal protection clause says we can’t do!

When there are two laws that talk about the same thing, and they are completely contradictory – like complete opposites – we say that the two laws can’t both be right. We say that the law passed more recently has repealed, or erased, the earlier law. That’s why I think we’ve already repealed the natural born citizen clause. The equal protection clause has erased it!

The only way to find out if my argument is right is for someone who is not a natural born citizen to run for President. Then they can ask the U.S. Supreme Court if the natural born citizen clause is still good law. Maybe one of the readers of Mei Magazine will decide to run for President, and prove to everyone that the natural born citizen clause has no place in modern America!

(If you'd like to read more (lots more!), you can read (or not!) my lengthy scholarly article on the subject: The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship.)