The neighbor who had to leave is different.
Look, we’re a big country and, like it or not, there are rules and processes to keep the machine running. It isn’t the mom n pop town where people get to bend rules and “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
Cumbersome? Yes. But with the volume of immigration related work, there’s no just saying ‘make it simpler.’ Any crack you open can let in more who aren’t innocent. Checks and balances. Perfect? No.
^^JHS: the leave-and-return-with-the-correct visa policy may not make much sense (to either of us), but its been law for many years. Surely, if it didn’t make sense to the politicos and/or immigration experts, they would have changed it over the years. Yet, it remains.
Still, perhaps the law is an a$$. 
I don’t think these people were such idiots that they thought they could just permanently bring the D here on a tourist visa, although believing that they are certainly helps justify any inconvenience they may face now.
My reading of the situation was that when they decided to come back to the States they applied for a residency visa for their child, but when that took longer than they expected they figured they could bring her in on a tourist visa and that they would have the residency visa approved before the tourist visa expired. The problem is that the tourist visa violated the terms of the application for the more permanent visa. The US government rejected her application, leaving her in limbo when the tourist visa expires.
Perhaps the best solution, if they could get some assurances the US government would play ball, would be for a parent to leave the country with the daughter and reapply from outside the country, following the rules this time. It would be a pain, and expensive, but better than having her stay illegally.
Just a guess, but I don’t think their largest hurdle is going to be which visa they get or the physical location of the child, although those things need to be straightened out.
The intent of the regulations surrounding the Hague agreement appear to be to protect not just the adopted children but also the parents of those children. It won’t be impossible to prove that the child isn’t being trafficked and that the parents can and will provide a good home - hoops to jump through, documentation to complete but doable. The real problem is going to be proving and documenting that the rights of the bio parents were protected. Tracking down the bio mother (and possibly father?) and doing the work and getting the documentation to prove she willingly surrendered the baby, wasn’t harmed, threatened or paid would be one of the near impossible issues.
I don’t think there are a lot of pure Native Americans on this thread.
Those of us who are American citizens, or here legally . . . some of us immigrated relatively recently, and ran the immigration maze in all its byzantine glory. But most of us are probably like me. All of my great-grandparents got on a boat somewhere, paid a fare, endured awful conditions, and when they got here they applied to be allowed in. They were interviewed, they were checked for obvious diseases, and they were permitted to live and to work here. Their children were American citizens from birth (except for the ones who were already alive when their parents came). Everyone eventually became a citizen. Among other accomplishments, their descendants have paid Lord knows how many millions of dollars in taxes. (Some more than others.)
And of course, some of us have forebears who arrived here as cargo, chained in a cargo hold. They didn’t have to apply to live here; it didn’t matter what they wanted.
None of these rules are natural or God-given.
If a foreign minor child of US passport holder parents enters on a tourist visa for residential purposes, that should raise questions in immigration. Which line did they use to enter the US for example? That would have had to be discussed and decided upon. These people took a calculated risk and are possibly trying to wrap their story into the bigger child separation one for extra media leverage for the headline readers only.
I can’t help but wonder if there was something about the way the Peruvian domestic adoption was handled that prompted this couple to chose the path they did. What outcome were they expecting from bringing the child to the US on a tourist visa?
Living in the US with their preschool daughter, presumably. The parents are American citizens who want to live in the US with their little kid.
Their little kid who is not a US citizen. They cut corners, presumably because it was easier to just go forward with a domestic Peruvian adoption than to involve a US adoption agency. It may have been an innocent mistake, but it was a mistake they compounded by bringing their daughter to the US on a tourist visa.
Well, a visitor visa was not the right choice for their desired outcome.
They either a) had unrealistic expectations, b) were given bad advice, or c) knew the possible outcome and gambled. I don’t think they were totally ignorant that their current situation was a possibility.
I adopted internationally in 1999 and 2000. There were clear cut instructions on the State Department website even in those days. From what I understand adoption workers in some countries were trafficking children so now DNA tests are required to be sure the child was not abducted. We took the extra step of readopting in Virginia so both kids can get VA birth certificates when they need them. We also applied for citizenship and went through the ceremony when they were about 9 & 10. They were both adopted just before automatic citizenship was conferred. On the message board I’m on some parents still have problems getting passports for their kids under the auto citizenship. The piece of paper in English is a great help.
This story does not relate at all to the current despicable (IMO) actions of ICE.
They aren’t idiots, they just think, like many others, that they’ll get to the US and once they are back they can fix anything. They can’t. Immigration laws are very strict and whether you agree with the laws and policies or not, they are what they are. The Hague convention was put in place to prevent child kidnappings and corruption in foreign adoptions. Are there cases where the child would be much better off by being adopted by Angelina Jolie, or even John and Jane Doe? Of course. Have the new procedures and laws prevented many kidnappings? Yes. Look at the history of adoptions from Cambodia or Guatemala. There were many babies taken from orphanages and day cares against their parents’ wishes.
When Lil’ Fang is born while her parents on their trip to Canada, the first stop when they leave the hospital is not the airport or the border, it’s the US consulate to get the right documentation to get back into the US. The parents will have to prove this is Lil’ Fang, that they are US citizens, that they have the right to take the child out of Canada. If they are flying, they will have to get either a US passport or a Canadian passport for the child.
It may be that this Peruvian child isn’t eligible for the Hague adoption process because of the non-abandonment documentation required. If not, then the only option is the I-130 immediate relative adoption method.
But there is nothing wrong or illegal about the procedure. It’s not a law school exam problem. Follow the procedures.
I think it is a risk to try and use publicity in the current environment, they flouted procedure knowingly and would have clearly understood applying for residency while in the US on a tourist visa was going to create problems. The sad thing is this could totally blow up in their faces because they have tried using the media. IMO their story isn’t especially compelling, any third world tourist might have a baby thrust into their arms and asked to adopt, that hardly makes it a great idea. The story I read doesn’t even make it sound like the parents were even looking to adopt. If that’s how the story is being presented to the media, it isn’t helping.
"Becerra learned Angela’s case has been denied.
They don’t know why"
But they do know why. Kid is on a tourist visa.
The public doesn’t know how many kids were brought into this country because their natural born parents just wanted a better life for them expecting them to return as adults not understanding what was happening, or parents who give their children to unrelated adults to get them over the border and on and on. I have no issue with the government getting compliance from this family and agree they tried to use the media and the public’s lack of knowledge around international intra and inter country adoption law as it relates to coming to the US. The US laws are complex as are international agreements. Perhaps they could be simpler but that is neither here nor there as they are current laws. They should have taken care of this in Peru when they owned a home to live in and not just come here with this child thinking they could work it out.