She grew up believing she was a U.S. citizen. Then she applied for a passport

Npr - Apr 19th, 2025

A, an adoptee from South Korea, discovered she lacked U.S. citizenship when applying for a passport, a revelation that has left her at risk of deportation despite living in the U.S. her entire life. The issue stems from her adoptive parents not completing her naturalization process, a common oversight that leaves many adoptees in a precarious legal status. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 failed to cover adoptees like A, creating a citizenship gap that affects access to education, federal benefits, and freedom of movement. Advocates have been pushing for legislative changes to remove age restrictions and address these gaps, but progress has been slow.

The broader issue highlights systemic failures in the adoption and immigration processes, as many adoptees and their families were unaware of the separate naturalization requirement. Recent political climates, especially under the Trump administration, have increased fears of deportation among non-citizen adoptees. Despite bipartisan support, efforts to amend the 2000 law are hindered by the complexities of immigration reform. The situation underscores the need for both federal and state-level interventions to ensure adoptees receive the rights and protections they were promised, emphasizing the human rights and dignity at stake.

Trump Administration Deportation Legislation Adoptees Child Citizenship Act Naturalization Adoption Agencies

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article effectively highlights the complex issue of adoptees lacking citizenship in the U.S., intertwining personal narratives with broader legal and social contexts. It provides a well-rounded view by including perspectives from adoptees, experts, and advocacy groups, although it could benefit from additional input from policymakers to enhance balance. The article is timely and relevant, connecting to current immigration debates and legislative efforts.

The story's factual accuracy is strong, with claims supported by legal frameworks and advocacy reports. However, further verification of personal anecdotes would strengthen its reliability. The piece is well-written and accessible, making complex issues understandable to a general audience.

Overall, the article successfully raises awareness about the challenges faced by adoptees without citizenship and the need for legislative reform, potentially influencing public opinion and policy discussions. Its engaging narrative and clear presentation make it a valuable contribution to ongoing debates about immigration and adoptee rights.

Accuracy

The story accurately depicts the challenges faced by adoptees in the U.S. who lack citizenship. It accurately describes the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 and its limitations, which only cover adoptees born after February 1983 or those under 18 at the time the law took effect. The narrative about the Trump administration's expanded deportation policies is consistent with documented immigration enforcement practices.

The personal account of 'A' aligns with known issues faced by adoptees regarding delayed birth registrations and the difficulty in proving citizenship. The story mentions the systemic gap between federal and state jurisdictions, a well-documented issue in legal scholarship. However, as 'A's' story is anecdotal, it would require further verification through legal records to confirm all personal details.

The story also discusses the malpractice in South Korean adoption agencies, which is supported by reports from South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Overall, the article's factual claims are well-supported by existing legal frameworks and advocacy reports, with minimal areas needing further verification.

Balance

The story presents a balanced view of the challenges faced by adoptees lacking citizenship. It highlights personal narratives, expert opinions, and advocacy efforts, offering a comprehensive view of the issue. The inclusion of perspectives from adoptees, legal experts, and advocacy groups adds depth to the narrative.

However, the article could benefit from including viewpoints from government officials or policymakers to provide a more rounded perspective on legislative efforts and challenges. While the story focuses on the difficulties faced by adoptees, it could also explore the reasons behind legislative inertia from a governmental perspective to enhance balance.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly written, making complex legal and social issues accessible to a general audience. The narrative flows logically, moving from personal stories to broader legal contexts and advocacy efforts.

The language used is neutral and informative, avoiding jargon that could hinder understanding. However, the story could benefit from clearer explanations of specific legal terms or processes to ensure full comprehension by readers unfamiliar with immigration law.

Source quality

The story relies on credible sources, including personal narratives from adoptees, expert commentary from legal professionals, and reports from advocacy groups. The inclusion of a history professor's insights and references to South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission adds authority to the piece.

However, the story could improve by citing specific government or legislative sources to support claims about the Child Citizenship Act and ongoing legislative efforts. Inclusion of direct quotes or statements from policymakers would enhance the reliability and depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides a clear account of the issues faced by adoptees without citizenship, explaining the legal and social contexts effectively. It outlines the basis for its claims, such as the Child Citizenship Act's limitations and the impact of the Trump administration's policies.

However, the story could improve transparency by detailing the methodology used to gather personal stories and expert opinions, as well as any potential conflicts of interest from sources. Providing more context on how 'A's' story was verified or corroborated would enhance transparency.