You may have seen some posting recently about HR 4896: The North Korean Refugee Act of 2010 (known by the same name in the Senate as S 3156).
Before the bill was introduced in the House, I had the opportunity to communicate Hannah Song of Liberty in North Korea (LiNK) and Elliot Lee of the Campaign for North Korean Orphans. Their organizations are promoting some type of legislation to make it possible for stateless refugeed North Korean orphans to be adopted in the U.S. I raised my concerns to both that any bill to support such adoptions should pay close attention to the problems with intercountry adoption generally, and with adoption from South Korea in particular. I also shared my view that the bill needed to pay attention to preserving families.
I was disappointed when I read the text of the bill, because it opens the door wide to the same kinds of adoptive parent centric supply-and-demand program that characterizes just about all intercountry adoption programs. I cannot support it as it is, but it really disappoints me to see how many people are turning their backs on the people this bill was intended to help: children, mostly older, who are truly stateless and without family, facing a horrible future on the run in China or worse, returned to North Korea. Not a single serious critique of the bill that I have read has suggested that these people deserve better.
I find the fact that the bill speaks to adoption of children from within North Korea a real head-scratcher, because I'm pretty sure Kim Jung Il won't be opening his arms to any South Korean or American intercountry adoption agencies any time soon. I honestly don't know what Ed Royce had in mind with that. However, it's clear from LiNK's web page on this issue that LiNK's goal is support for orphaned North Korean and stateless children from North Korea in China. (And yes, I suggested LiNK lose the name "Safe Haven Shelters.")
Of the North Korean refugees who are hiding or have come through China, the majority are women and over 70 percent are trafficked or voluntarily marry Chinese men. Some of these women, however, leave their families for fear of being caught and sent back to North Korea or to escape abuse. Once the mothers leave, the fathers often find themselves struggling or unable to provide for their children, leaving them to be cared for by relatives or altogether abandoned.The Campaign for North Korean Orphans describes these children's statelessness in legal terms here. And again, their focus is on stateless and orphaned North Korean children in China.
Both orphaned North Korean and stateless children in the underground in China lack documentation that allow them to receive education, work legally or have basic rights. For North Korean children, seeking asylum in South Korea or the US is an option. However, without appropriate documentation, they cannot be eligible for adoption in the US – only foster care. US law requires documentation that their parents have in fact abandoned them or have passed away. Providing such evidence is impossible for these children. They cannot simply request official documents from the nearest North Korean consulate or contact family in North Korea for assistance. For stateless children who have no citizenship, no rights and no future - they are forgotten in China.
Now that the bill is out, I've written again to Hannah Song and Elliot Lee, and have expressed my concern about the language in this bill, particularly the fact that it suggests children IN North Korea will be considered for adoption; I will be writing the same to my legislators. Although I can't support the bill as it now stands, neither can I dismiss the truly horrible situation refugeed North Korean children are in. I sincerely hope others will consider this while they voice their valid concerns about the legislation.
For more information, I suggest LiNK's website, One Free Korea, the North Korea International Documentation Project and The Aquariums of Pyongyang.
Adding as an aside: The reaction I see in the adoption community toward this bill is a good example of the personal conflict I find myself in regarding online adoption dialog: there's no opportunity to talk to all angles in a single forum. Maybe because this particular cause is one I know a little about from personal support of LiNK and involvement with a (sadly failed) attempt to start a national organization for North Korean issues, I have heard and read more than most about the situation there and in China. It can't be compared to other refugee situations in which people flee en masse to camps; it is a situation in which even very young children are left to fend for themselves alone in the Chinese underground. When families can be kept together, we should make that happen, and LiNK does. But when that possibility is dead, we should offer the children a better future than the one facing them. I imagine myself meeting such a child and asking them what they want for their future: Life with their Korean family would certainly be at the top of the list, but if that family is gone, I bet they would much rather find comfort in another family than life forever underground.
Also adding: A commenter just pointed out that there's a rumor out there that orphaned North Korean refugees may be entering China adoption programs. Certainly seems to be possible, and is something I'd like to know more about. Has anyone else heard this, and where?
It is interesting to see this bill because I have heard a rumor that Chinese orphanages might be acquiring North Korean orphans for their international adoption program. It is obviously a rumor, but it doesn't seem completely impossible given other issues we have seen in China.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely isn't impossible. From my point of view, if there is any way the proposed legislation could be rewritten to include the kinds of safeguards people want to see in intercountry adoption laws and regulations, I believe children would have a better chance of retaining their identities than if they went into a Chinese program.
ReplyDeleteI know very little about China adoption, but I know that China's record on North Korean refugees is appalling. They have cared nothing for the lives they've returned to North Korea (it's China's policy to repatriate North Korean refugees, hence the underground), so I have little reason they would care about something like their identities and histories.
I'm glad you made that comment, it's another angle to be aware of.
Margie, I appreciate your perspective on this and accept that the motivation of LINK, et al., is noble. But the language of the statute leaves much room for those less noble to see North Korean orphans as a new commodity in international adoption. Yes, something needs to be done for them, but I'm afraid this isn't it.
ReplyDeleteMalinda, I'm thinking you didn't read the post. If you do, you will see that I say I do not accept the language as the bill now stands, and do not support it. And as I also said in the post, I have expressed those concerns to LiNK and the NK Orphan Campaign, and am in the process of expressing them to my legislators.
ReplyDeleteBut I also support the real need of the refugeed North Korean children in China. I believe that adoption, when used appropriately - after confirming that children have no family alive or willing to parent them, and providing support to families that want to stay together - will offer the kids who truly have no family, no state and no hope a life beyond the Chinese underground.
For me, anyway, this piece of legislation is where my desire for adoption reform intersects with my desire to help a population of kids who have been ignored by the world so far, save for the attention of a few small organizations like LiNK. I just wish people who have the pulpit could spare a thought for those kids while they're rightfully criticizing the bill. Maybe then, instead of the knee-jerk dismissals, there could be discussion of exactly how to do this right. And that could have positive repercussions for intercountry adoption as a whole.
Just my opinion, hopefully delivered with respect as it's intended.
Yes, Margie, I read your whole post, and the comment you first posted at my blog, so I do know your position on this. My comment here was AGREEING with you! I have a great deal of respect for your views and I know you are far more knowledgeable on issues involving North Korean refugees than I am -- I have dutifully voted for LINK everytime you've asked me to on facebook, but do it on the strength of your knowledge, not because I know anything about the issue.
ReplyDeleteSo I posted at my blog and commented here on what I DO know about -- the law itself. In doing so, I was not being dismissive of the problems of North Korean refugees, but how do I make suggestions when I know nothing about it?!
And I don't accept the position that one can't offer a criticism on something one does know without knowing EVERYTHING about the issue. I can, for example, offer analysis of the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration bill without knowing the entire effect of illegal immigration in Arizona.
I look forward to learning from you what you think CAN be done for North Korean refugees -- families and unparented children -- outside of this bill. And because of my respect for you, I will support what you suggest!
Malinda, re this: “And I don't accept the position that one can't offer a criticism on something one does know without knowing EVERYTHING about the issue. I can, for example, offer analysis of the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration bill without knowing the entire effect of illegal immigration in Arizona.”
ReplyDeleteCertainly you can express a criticism, but I hope you agree that your criticism should be based in fact. The Arizona bill’s very existence is largely due to the fact that critics DON’T know their facts, and have presumed that an entire range of problems are caused by immigrants, when fact demonstrates that they are not.
When we don’t know everything about an issue, we can certainly criticize, but I think we have an obligation to acknowledge our ignorance, to solicit the knowledge of others, and to take a care that we don’t torpedo the need of the target audience in the process of making our point.
In adoption-land, I am guilty of this, so don’t feel singled out here. But I’ve come to the conclusion that it doesn’t help adoption, nor does it help children who might really benefit from adoption, so I’m trying to be more careful to avoid this.
This statement is the one that I take exception with:
"And this sudden compassionate interest in North Korean orphans might come across as more sincere if we had taken in more than "nearly 100" North Korean refugees in the past 6 years. I'd bet if we brought more North Korean FAMILIES to the U.S., there would be fewer orphaned North Korean children living within South Korea. And if we "established pilot programs" to assist stateless North Korean FAMILIES in South Korea, not just North Korean orphans, there would also be fewer North Korean orphans. This bill looks more like a way to provide more children for Americans to adopt than some kind of compassionate outreach to North Korean refugees."
It’s misleading, and gives the impression that entire North Korean families escape (rare, if it even ever happens; rarer still for any escaping group to remain intact thanks to China’s repatriation policy); that family separation for the purpose of adoption after escape has created or will create the number of orphaned North Korean children in China (the children in question have long been orphaned by North Korea’s gulags or China’s repatriation policy); that pilot programs for families will somehow mitigate the number of orphans (there are virtually no families with which to pilot).
Well, actually, I do feel singled out -- since you're taking exception to what I say! But don't worry, I can take it, without taking offense.
ReplyDeleteI'm very sorry that my post offended you and that you feel it to be misleading. I would be happy to publish any addendum you would give me to clear up what you consider misleading.
All I was saying in my post is that the past position of the U.S. in letting in only 100 North Korean refugees (when we both know that there are some 400,000 refugees from NK in a variety of countries, because the LiNK website says so) shows little interest in North Korean refugees, unless they are adoptable. In saying that, I am suggesting that the U.S. step up to the plate to help ALL North Korean refugees.
I said the same thing during all the cries for an airlift from Haiti -- we weren't interested in bringing adult Haitians to the country, only the adoptable ones. I see it as all of a piece with the strong anti-immigrant feeling we're seeing in the country these days -- just about the only good immigrant is one attached to a white adoptive family. Cynical? Yes, but it's hard not to be in this environment.
Again, I respect your position and your knowledge of the subject. I will say no more on the matter.
malinda
Malinda, I apologize for calling out your post. It was the one that had the example of what's frustrating to me about the reaction to this legislation. I hope you know that I respect your writing and generally agree with pretty much everything you say.
ReplyDeleteI definitely am not looking for any kind of addendum or clarification, which is why I didn't link to your post in any of the couple of posts I've written on this. I'm going to delete this comment stream in a day or so, because my intent is really just to make the point that I think we need to be careful of facts when we post about things we're not connected to first-hand.
On a separate note, I received a long email from Hannah Song at LiNK in response to my email to her, and have asked for her permission to post it. It clarifies a lot, may not answer or resolve all concerns, but provides a context for the bill's language.