u/Arktikos02

"A new bill in Congress—supported and driven by Holt International—will no doubt lull noncitizen intercountry adoptees to apply for U.S. citizenship, only to find out the hard way that the bill’s promise of “automatic” citizenship is a false and dangerous ruse. Don’t fall for it. Don’t support it. There’s a far better bipartisan bill in Congress already."

Yes, I'm sure that despite all of the propaganda, all of the representation (not by adoptees), all of the mentions, and everything I'm sure people have never ever ever heard of adoption. Come on, people have heard of it. They don't need random people reminding them.

So people talk about keeping a child within the family or having them go back to their biological family and they know about kinship adoption and yet they think that a child going back to their biological family somehow either always means going back to their birth parents or something else?

Going back to your biological family does not always mean going back to your birth parents. And if the birth parents somehow were the worst people in the world that does not mean that every member of the biological family is somehow unable to adopt or take care of that child. It is important for the state to exhaust every person possible within the family.

And yet it almost seems as if once both parents or even just the birth mother is seen as incapable of raising her child that somehow means that the entire family should be up for suspicion. Why? Just because a birth mother is unable to raise her child doesn't mean that the child's aunt or the child's Uncle or even in-laws or grandparents or cousins. Those are perfectly valid people to exhaust first but for some reason they are placed into a mental suspicion.

If the birth mother was a drug addict and abusive does that mean that it condemns the entire family? And if it does condemn the entire family why are you taking child of that drug addict if you are condemning the entire family because that child has 50% of the DNA of that drug addict so if you're condemning the entire family and assuming they're not safe or something or that there is something genetically wrong then why are you taking the child?

I'm not saying that kinship adoption is always an option but if you for example are a foster parent or just a random person who knows very little about the situation in regards to the child, a social worker does not have to reveal the information they know that gave them the conclusion that it is safe to go to their biological family. Especially to strangers and especially to the foster parent.

View Poll

As in they haven't done anything illegal and it's just the attraction and they are telling you because they want to seek help and so that you are properly informed when making decisions about them.

I don't care if you think it is unjust. It is not okay to try to do this in another country. What if you did that in another country and even if it's a neighboring country and then you try to bring the child back. What if the country you are from does not recognize you and the child as legitimate? Are you going to lie?

I've seen people recommend that they lie. IVF for example is illegal for single parents in Switzerland and I've seen people recommend that they do IVF in another country and then bring the child back and then just lie that they don't know who the father is rather than saying that they're from IVF.

Why are people recommending these things? I don't care if you think your country is doing something unfair, don't do illegal stuff when it comes to building your family. It could really bite you in the ass later. Doesn't matter if it's oppressive, if it's expressive, move.

Same thing for if your country doesn't allow for you to adopt because you're a single parent by choice, a gay couple, or there are restrictions you think are unreasonable. Don't do this to your future child. Don't do it. I don't care. These are one of those laws where you don't break the rules.

Normally I'm not one of those people that thinks that every unjust law should be followed but in the case of building your family you don't do it because the people who can be punish the most are not you but your child and that is not a fair situation to put your child into. They didn't ask for this and they cannot consent to it. You cannot do something illegal in which the potential recipients of the consequences of that are people who are not you. You don't get to do that.

Even if it is completely legal in theory to go to another country that is simply just because your country has either not made international actions illegal or they just don't think they can control you and in either case don't do it because you're breaking the spirit of the law. Don't do it. Your country has set those things up and I know that they're not always just but just don't do it because it's kind of creepy too. Strangers on the internet giving people recommendations on how to get around these restrictions. It fuels this mindset that they are owed a child.

Basically it is where they will do something like be at a stoplight or whatever and try to get it so that the car behind them accidentally Rams into them by essentially doing mixed messages or confusing start and stops or even just trying to somewhat back into them a little, get hit a little but not in a major way and then claim insurance.

Would you report?

View Poll

View Poll

So if you don't know at least in the United States and maybe another countries you are able to contest a marriage for very specific reasons. These reasons cannot simply be based off of religion or personal beliefs but you are given a set of reasons why you could contest another person's marriage. The reasons could be things like that the marriage would be illegal such as bigamy meaning that one or both people are already married and the government doesn't know about it, you could contest the marriage. The marriage would be illegal. The marriage is coerced or there is deception in the marriage. In the United States you're not allowed to get married under duress so for example we don't allow for forced marriages so if you have reason to believe that you could contest the marriage.

You should be able to contest an adoption. For example background checks are limited, they can only tackle things that have already been charged so if there is not a charge it's not going to show up. So let's say you happen to know that they've committed a crime relating to children of some kind and you want to report to the police and so you do but you also want to contest any adoption that is currently happening so that they can't even continue the process.

Other aspects that I think should be able to be aspects that could halt an adoption should be that if you know the person in question was lying about something and you report that to adoption agencies or to the state or whatever and they report that to adoption agencies, even if that itself is not a crime the lying itself should be of concern.

So let's say that they lie about the countries they've been to. Now it shouldn't be a problem about which countries you've been to but let's say you lie that you've been to Syria for example. Now I don't think people who simply go to Syria should be a problem but if you lie to an agency about that I think that that should be a problem because there's no reason to lie.

Or for example let's say you have a wife in another country like, Thailand and that's not a problem either. I would be a little weirded out about the fact that they're not currently together when they are adopting but maybe she wants to come over. However if that person lies about that fact that should be of concern because again there's no reason to lie about it and then it suddenly makes things look really sketchy.

So I saw this news video where it was talking about how this same-sex couple was coming across a barrier where their country had a donor limit and the idea was that if they were a heterosexual couple they could use the same sperm to have another child from the same donor to create a genetic sibling. But because they are a lesbian couple the other lesbian cannot use the same donor because that donor has reached the limit and thus they felt like the limit was basically telling them that they are not a family because using the other woman would reach the limit and sense the limit is about how many families are created they felt like it was invalidating their relationship. Do you think that there should be exceptions in cases like this or do you think that the limit should be solely based off of the number of uteruses that are successfully impregnated regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the person who has that uterus?

And I'm not just talking about companies and stuff, they do whatever they do. I'm talking about either a person or an entity represented by a person typically using a means of communication that invokes a lot of trust so a podcast, a YouTube channel, some other kind of social media influence for example, and they either say that they are part of the community or they actually are part of the community.

Now I know there's a lot of right-wing grifters who are sometimes lgbt but I'm talking about ones that are more targeting general LGBT members or progressives. These are people who are not talking about how they left the left or how they are detransitioning, I'm talking about people who are "what are your pronouns" "you are valid" type of people but they are still using all of that language and it turns out that they are grifting or they are trying to sell something and they have an agenda.

I'm mostly just curious because I want to know if there are any people who I need to watch out for who I am more likely to fall for because I'm not going to fall for someone who talks about how they are leaving the left or how they are detrans and how it ruin their life and how they're advocating against transitioning now. Like I have no problem with detrans people who are not transphobic but you get the idea.

But I am wondering if there are any people who I do need to watch out for because they don't automatically send off those immediate signals.

So basically it is a green card marriage or a Visa marriage. A marriage for the purposes of getting a Visa. It is one of those elaborate setups where they have an entire story and everything. But you know that the marriage is not real because One of the two people told you thinking that you wouldn't say anything.

This is not a person who is trying to simply get out of a bad situation or dangerous country, it is a person who wants to gain citizenship to your country and they paid your friend money to do so so this is basically a business transaction.

A legal objection means actually filing a legal objection to the state to stop the marriage or at least to investigate more. A legal objection is not simply going to the couple and telling them to stop although that does not mean that you wouldn't go to them first, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you would legally object.

View Poll

No, international adoption has two ends and those two ends do not always communicate with each other. You have the adoption and in the home country where the person is given. Most of the time these are done unethically. Then there is the home country. They don't usually check whether or not an adoption is actually legal, they may check whether or not the papers are legal but that's not the same thing as an adoption being legal. People often get those two things confused. They think that just because the papers are legit that somehow means the adoption is legit. In some countries they may not have that at all and instead the child simply goes to the country on a particular Visa then they have to be naturalized as a baby. There may or may not be a separate nationalization process for children who are adopted but this is not the same thing as adoption meaning citizenship. It means that they have to be naturalized separately but the process is still relatively smooth ideally because they are a baby.

This is obviously a very simplified model because every country will be different and have their own systems and there may be countries that do actually communicate more closely with the birth country in question however that's not always the case and a person not having citizenship does not automatically mean that the adoption wasn't legal.