Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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 Period1

Intercountry Adoption as a Migratory Practice: A Comparative Analysis of Intercountry Adoption... 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Migration Review SAGE

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 Period1

International Migration Review , Volume 34 (3): 43 – Sep 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/intercountry-adoption-as-a-migratory-practice-a-comparative-analysis-AuSEUKu12J

References (54)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 2000 Center for Migration Studies
ISSN
0197-9183
eISSN
1747-7379
DOI
10.1177/019791830003400310
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

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.

Journal

International Migration ReviewSAGE

Published: Sep 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.