[PASSED] Child Welfare in Adoption

[Sanctaria]

It's a very light proposal with very limited effects on national sovereignty. I couldn't imagine why there'd be such opposition.

It doesn't have limited effects on national sovereignty. This proposal doesn't protect children as the author claims. The author refuses to give a logical and reasonable reason why nations can not self regulate their international adoptions policies without an international agency.

I've not seen one good argument in this thread that makes this proposal good for anything but taking away a nations right to make their own regulations for foreigners to adopt. All I have seen is this is a way to streamline the adoption process for foreigners to adopt. The fact that the author is frustrated that each nation has its own regulations and requirements for adoption does not make this a good proposal or an international concern.

The Ambassador cannot speak to how I do or not feel. My authorship history has proven that I am primarily concerned with the protection of the vulnerable in society, particularly children.

Individual nations cannot self-regulate an international industry. Oversight is essential when it comes to the transferring of children between nations and there are nations out there that will sell children to the highest bidder, or perhaps even worse. Protecting children is a priority of mine, but so is ensuring that those who cannot have a family naturally, or for whatever legitimate reason, are able to.

I must register my concern also with the tone the word "foreigner" is being thrown around in. The Ambassador evidently doesn't not support those not resident in or citizens of his country being able to adopt children from his nation. Luckily for the Ambassador, however, this proposal does not force his nation to allow intercountry adoptions.

The World Assembly Adoption Authority will be a competent and well-managed body who will ensure the safety of children, a rigorous adoption process, and the integrity of the values in intercountry adoption.

Finally that the Ambassador cannot see how intercountry adoption is not an international priority is telling.

[Jarish Inyo]

You state in this proposal that clearly "FRUSTRATED with the reality that member nations each have differing rules and regulations regarding intercountry adoption,'. Frustrated is a feeling. As the author you are stated that you are frustrated with the way nations conduct their international adoption policy.

Nation can self regulate their adoption policy. In fact nations do self regulate international industries. No, international oversight is not need when transferring children to another nation. If the prospective parents have met the requirements of the nation to adapt a child then there is not an issue. What proof do you have that any nation is selling children to the highest bidder? Still not a reasonable or logical reason from you why an international agency should tell any nation what their international adoption policy is.

I do support foreigners to adopt from my nation, as long as they can meet the requirements for adoption. Just as any citizen of my nation would have to meet. In fact, there is no difference in policy between citizen or foreigner. So why should I have to go with a less stringent international adoption policy for foreigners?

The World Assembly Adoption Authority will not be a competent and well-managed body who will ensure the safety of children, a rigorous adoption process, and the integrity of the values in intercountry adoption. The World Assembly Adoption Authority makes the regulations and leaves the enforcement of said regulations to the same nations that you do not think are capable of self regulating their own intercountry adoption policies. Please explain how this will be better? How will this take care of any of the concern you have with nations regulating themselves?

You're right. I don't see how adoption is an international priority. Why should the WA interfere with nations having requirements for prospective parents to meet to adopt. Why should the WA interfere with a nation ensuring that a child is going to go to a safe, stable and loving home?

This proposal does not prevent child trafficking, abuse, or nations 'from selling children to the highest bidder'. Child trafficking, like all human trafficking is done illegally. Abuse happens after the child is with their new parents. And there has been no proof that any WA nation is selling children.

Simple fact is that this proposal only creates two new agencies. An international agency to create the rules. And a national one to enforce them. Or if the nation is corrupt, circumvent them and make it look good on paper. Why must we create two new agencies that are not need because you are frustrated that individuals must meet certain requirements before they can adopt?

[Sanctaria]

*snip*

The Ambassador is continuously repeating himself despite my having answered him on previous occasions. Allow me to be more succinct.

Firstly, the preamble is not a statement on my behalf, but to provide context to the resolution. I am not frustrated. I am not looking to adopt. The General Assembly as a body is frustrated.

Secondly, individual nations cannot regulate international and multifaceted industries alone. What's usually required is bilateral agreements, and in the case of business and industries operating in more than one country, these are usually tax treaties or the ilk. Tax treaties are obviously not appropriate in the case of adoption, so this is its equivalent.

Thirdly, the WAAA will be competent and well-ran. It is a World Assembly agency staffed by the gnomes. The gnomes are infallible and always run these committees and agencies with due diligence and care.

Fourthly, I am sure there are countries with stringent intercountry adoption policies. However there are also countries who do not have such policies, and it is these countries that are failing children and prospective adopters alike. Consolidating regulations for nations within the World Assembly will ensure a uniform and rigorous set of standards ensuring the protection of children up for adoption in every country, not just the few who feel the same way I do about stringent and benchmark measures.

Fifthly, I agree with the Ambassadors that nations can regulate their adoption policies. Their domestic adoption policies. These are international policies and international policies and actions have international consequences. That is why a neutral international body should have an oversight or regulatory duty. That's what this proposal does with regards to intercountry adoption.

Sixthly, the Ambassador is aware I am not talking about the black market. I am talking about nations that actively and consciously flout ethical and moral standards to export children to despotic and tyrannical wastelands. This resolution goes a long way from preventing governments from doing so by making it illegal to sell children for monetary or in-kind benefits.

Finally, this only creates a national agency if a nation already does not have one. An agency tied to the government to deal with transferring children to countries around the NationStates multiverse ensures transparency and good governance. As I've already said.

Ambassador, I seek to protect the vulnerable whenever I can. In this case I can do so, and I'm also helping make it a little easier for families to be created, which is a bonus. It's disappointing you disagree, but such is life. I cannot offer you platitudes, and I'm not willing to to abandon this project. It has been submitted and no changes can be made, not that any has been suggested.

I thank you for you comments and I bid you a good evening.

[Araraukar]

I'm not sure what a war has got to do with intercountry adoptions.

Ever heard of war orphans?
[OOC: Take Vietnam War for example - recently orphaned children were flown out by USA to be adopted in the USA, but the children were moved before any adoptions had been made/finalized to get them out of the war-torn country.]

otherwise it'd most widely be interpreted as some sort of refugee thing.

This is exactly the kind of workaround I'm fairly certain nations will be able to pull off and still stay within the letter of the law.

Ah, yes. It's just the way you said:

should it make it through the vote.

Made me think you thought it didn't stand a chance.

OOC: These days I don't know what does and doesn't. Tends to be whoever buys stamps or gets a mod to co-draft the proposal gets their proposal to the vote, then it's up in the air, unless the delegates buy it.

IC: Well, nothing is ever certain. Mind you, if you were to make a proposal that allowed the ambassadors to transfer their bartabs to the WA General Fund, that might get passed without a hitch.

OOC: Something odd happened - I got a "service down" notice page, so if a duplicate post of this appears, I'm sorry in advance.

[Araraukar]

The author refuses to give a logical and reasonable reason why nations can not self regulate their international adoptions policies without an international agency.

Ambassador, if you hate an international agency butting in on your nation's affairs, I suggest you point it out to your government that WA membership is optional. The author of this particular proposal doesn't owe you a specific explanation on the joys of being or not being in the WA.

OOC EDIT: By the way, does your RP ambassador have a name we could call him/her/it by? Mine's in my forum sig.

[Jarish Inyo]

Again this proposal does none of these things. I repeat myself because you do not address any of my concerns.

First, the preamble should not state that the WA is frustrated with nations having their own regulations. To be truthful, it is YOU that is frustrated with nation having their own regulations. It was suggested in this thread that frustrated be replaced with a different word. You chose to keep it.

Second, nations do regulate international trade. Nations decide what products they sell internationally. If a nation that makes a valuable product decides to put stricter regulations on said product, it affects international trade.

Third, the WAAA will not be competent and well-ran. The NBA are ran at the national level. It is not staffed by infallible World Assembly gnomes.

Fourth, nations that do not have more stringent regulations are not failing children and prospective adopted parents. Consolidating regulations for nations within the World Assembly does not ensure the protection of children up for adoption in every country. It will force nations to lower their requirements.

Fifth, you can't say that nations can regulate domestic adoption and not international adoption. Adoption is adoption. International adoption is not international policy and does not have international consequences. International adoption is between an individual or a couple and the country/agency that the prospective parent/parents are adopting from. It does not require government officials to meet and decide if the adoption is in the best interest of each nation. Any consequences after the adoption is finalized is between the parents and their country. So I do not see how you can claim that it is international policy with international consequences.

Six, if nations are selling children, then said children are not being adopted. As such, the children in question are not subject to regulations on adoption. Nations that actively and consciously flout ethical and moral standards will not abide by this proposal.

Finally, an agency tied to the government to deal with transferring children to countries around the NationStates multiverse does not ensures transparency and good governance. As I already pointed out, these are the same people you state can not be trusted to handle international adoptions without WA oversight.

In this case you do not protect the vulnerable. All you have done was create an agency to create regulations undermining nations adoption policies. Said policies will be 'enforced' by the same nations that this proposal undermines. Making it easier for prospective adoptive parents is not a good thing. Prospective parents should have to go through the most stringent of checks before they are allowed to adopt.

I believe the concern behind this proposal is real, but this proposal is fundamentally flawed. It does not protect anyone. It makes it easier for the wrong type of people to adopt.

[Jarish Inyo]

The author refuses to give a logical and reasonable reason why nations can not self regulate their international adoptions policies without an international agency.

Ambassador, if you hate an international agency butting in on your nation's affairs, I suggest you point it out to your government that WA membership is optional. The author of this particular proposal doesn't owe you a specific explanation on the joys of being or not being in the WA.

OOC EDIT: By the way, does your RP ambassador have a name we could call him/her/it by? Mine's in my forum sig.

The Ambassador does owe me why this issue is should be an international issue and not handled by nations. And why the WA should create another agency. I'm not strictly against international accords for the protection of children. Just not international regulations on adoptions.

[Sanctaria]

I have already addressed all the Ambassador's problems. He chooses to not accept my responses. He also has stated he does not support international regulation of adoption.

I thank the Ambassador for his input and his opinions.

[Jarish Inyo]

No Ambassador, you have not addressed a signal one of my problems. The reasons you have stated are not sound, logical or reasonable. I've countered your arguments and you have not been able to counter mine .This proposal does not protect children as you stated it will. You've tried to claim that this proposal will stop child trafficking and abuse. It doesn't. All it does is weakens the protections nations have in place for international adoption in favor of streamlining the adoption in favor of prospective adoptive parents.

[Normlpeople]

"While I like the way this is written, the title is a little deceptive, as this seems to cover international adoption as opposed to domestic adoption. The only part that really worries me is:

DECLARES that no National Adoption Board may establish regulations, procedures, protocols, or standards regarding intercountry adoption that are contradictory or additional to those established by WAAA;

As the WA is a multiverse with many different races and such, I do not like the idea of restricting the relevant agencies from adopting additional requirements for the safety of children being adopted. It seems prudent to allow for additional safeguards, such as proof of knowledge regarding care of another species, to ensure the child will be sufficiently and competently cared for. That said, I don't feel it's enough to warrant voting against, should this go to vote."

[Sanctaria]

"While I like the way this is written, the title is a little deceptive, as this seems to cover international adoption as opposed to domestic adoption.

When you have a certain amount of characters for the title, you have to be succinct.

The only part that really worries me is:

DECLARES that no National Adoption Board may establish regulations, procedures, protocols, or standards regarding intercountry adoption that are contradictory or additional to those established by WAAA;

As the WA is a multiverse with many different races and such, I do not like the idea of restricting the relevant agencies from adopting additional requirements for the safety of children being adopted. It seems prudent to allow for additional safeguards, such as proof of knowledge regarding care of another species, to ensure the child will be sufficiently and competently cared for. That said, I don't feel it's enough to warrant voting against, should this go to vote."

This is intentional. The whole idea of this proposal is to make sure there is a strict and and rigorous set of standard and uniform rules and regulations. What the Ambassador suggests would have required my writing the proposal to be a micromanaging one. Since the proposal demands a high level of procedures and protocols to ensure the safety of children, it would be correct to assume when dealing with inter-species adoptions, they're going to be competent to know to ask these questions.

I'm confident that not knowing how to take care of a different species would also come under compelling practical purpose for allowing the denial of such an adoption.

[Normlpeople]

This is intentional. The whole idea of this proposal is to make sure there is a strict and and rigorous set of standard and uniform rules and regulations. What the Ambassador suggests would have required my writing the proposal to be a micromanaging one. Since the proposal demands a high level of procedures and protocols to ensure the safety of children, it would be correct to assume when dealing with inter-species adoptions, they're going to be competent to know to ask these questions.

I'm confident that not knowing how to take care of a different species would also come under compelling practical purpose for allowing the denial of such an adoption.

"I would agree that it would fall under "Practical Purpose", however, I still do not see what is wrong with allowing additional guidelines in addition to the base ones supplied by the committee. After all, with many species and cultures, its practically impossible to write a "catch all" series of procedures and protocols. Then again, I do see your side of it, the delicate balance of the child's well-being vs their actually being adopted. All in all, I do see enough here to support nonetheless."

[Defwa]

I see potential problems with the immigration of an adopted child. A nation that otherwise allows international adoption could block the arrival of the adopted children for a multitude of reasons. Could something be added along the lines of "Those adopted under the guidelines of WAAA must be given citizenship and rights equivalent to someone born in the nation."

That way nations that require national service or something to become full citizens even for those born there still get their thing but children cant be deported as illegal aliens

[Sanctaria]

I see potential problems with the immigration of an adopted child. A nation that otherwise allows international adoption could block the arrival of the adopted children for a multitude of reasons. Could something be added along the lines of "Those adopted under the guidelines of WAAA must be given citizenship and rights equivalent to someone born in the nation."

That way nations that require national service or something to become full citizens even for those born there still get their thing but children cant be deported as illegal aliens

I'm not sure I understand the Ambassador. A nation's citizenship requirements and criteria are outside the scope of this resolution which aims to consolidate intercountry adoption regulations in an effort to ensure a strong and uniform procedures.

I can't understand why a nation that allows intercountry adoption would then try to block the adopted child coming in.

[Defwa]

I see potential problems with the immigration of an adopted child. A nation that otherwise allows international adoption could block the arrival of the adopted children for a multitude of reasons. Could something be added along the lines of "Those adopted under the guidelines of WAAA must be given citizenship and rights equivalent to someone born in the nation."

That way nations that require national service or something to become full citizens even for those born there still get their thing but children cant be deported as illegal aliens

I'm not sure I understand the Ambassador. A nation's citizenship requirements and criteria are outside the scope of this resolution which aims to consolidate intercountry adoption regulations in an effort to ensure a strong and uniform procedures.

I can't understand why a nation that allows intercountry adoption would then try to block the adopted child coming in.

Political reasons, racial inclinations, religious belief- all sorts of things. You don't put that on the form, of course. Just say their missing some skill set, educational accomplishment, or something.

Especially if intercountry adoption law is unified, I would expect to see more events like that. Guaranteeing citizenship at this point could be done simply and eliminate a creative compliance loophole

[Sanctaria]

I'm not sure I understand the Ambassador. A nation's citizenship requirements and criteria are outside the scope of this resolution which aims to consolidate intercountry adoption regulations in an effort to ensure a strong and uniform procedures.

I can't understand why a nation that allows intercountry adoption would then try to block the adopted child coming in.

Political reasons, racial inclinations, religious belief- all sorts of things. You don't put that on the form, of course. Just say their missing some skill set, educational accomplishment, or something.

Especially if intercountry adoption law is unified, I would expect to see more events like that. Guaranteeing citizenship at this point could be done simply and eliminate a creative compliance loophole

There is already an anti-discrimination clause in the resolution and nations are required to act in good faith.

Also I'm not sure criteria such as skill set or educational accomplishments would apply. They're generally babies or rather young children that are being adopted, not adults with a certain degree of maturity.

EDIT: Countries are also not forced to allow intercountry adoptions. If they don't want foreign babies coming in, they don't have to. I'm not sure why they'd have to creatively comply.

[Defwa]

Political reasons, racial inclinations, religious belief- all sorts of things. You don't put that on the form, of course. Just say their missing some skill set, educational accomplishment, or something.

Especially if intercountry adoption law is unified, I would expect to see more events like that. Guaranteeing citizenship at this point could be done simply and eliminate a creative compliance loophole

There is already an anti-discrimination clause in the resolution and nations are required to act in good faith.

Also I'm not sure criteria such as skill set or educational accomplishments would apply. They're generally babies or rather young children that are being adopted, not adults with a certain degree of maturity.

EDIT: Countries are also not forced to allow intercountry adoptions. If they don't want foreign babies coming in, they don't have to. I'm not sure why they'd have to creatively comply.

Let me try this again.
Imagine a nation that does allow intercountry adoption but isn't really friendly to all countries. They're perfectly happy with most of the adoptions but occasionally one isn't satisfactory. Its the wrong race or the birth parents were from a heretic religion or the adoptive parents are of the wrong sexual persuasion.
Of course they can't deny adoption for those reasons, but they can deny citizenship to the child because it lacks skills. Yes, I know most children don't have marketable skills but that's beside the point- it remains a perfectly valid reason for denying an individual citizenship.

"Good baby. Good baby. Good baby. Bad baby- um, we really need nuclear physicists. This child simply would not contribute to the country, good bye. Good baby. Good baby..."
The baby is adopted, sure. It is now the child of new parents. But it can't get into the country, or if it does, it could be deported. Or even if it were not deported, it couldn't get a government ID. The child would be an illegal alien.

If you're going to try to remove barriers to intercountry adoption, removing loopholes to non discrimination laws is a must.
Your clause only stops the WAAA from creating standards that discriminate but does nothing for the national immigration board acting 'innocently'.

[Sanctaria]

Who a country does and does not grant citizenship to is outside the scope and purview of this proposal and the World Assembly as a whole, in my opinion. Though what you suggest does sound like a country acting contrary to good faith and RNT which we assume all nations comply with when drafting.

[Defwa]

Who a country does and does not grant citizenship to is outside the scope and purview of this proposal and the World Assembly as a whole, in my opinion. Though what you suggest does sound like a country acting contrary to good faith and RNT which we assume all nations comply with when drafting.

Good faith compliance is never an expectation- the name of the game is bending the rules to your benefit. You must be playing at something because I know you're not that naive.

But go right ahead. I mean, it would just be a simple way of actually getting your resolution to do something more than cut down on a little paperwork. Why go all the way? Half a good job is certainly sufficient.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Who a country does and does not grant citizenship to is outside the scope and purview of this proposal and the World Assembly as a whole, in my opinion. Though what you suggest does sound like a country acting contrary to good faith and RNT which we assume all nations comply with when drafting.

Good faith compliance is never an expectation

Good faith compliance is an explicit requirement:

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

[Bears Armed]

Guaranteeing citizenship at this point could be done simply and eliminate a creative compliance loophole

There is already an anti-discrimination clause in the resolution and nations are required to act in good faith.

And once the adopted child is inside the country with the new family it's [presumably?] an "inhabitant" of that nation, and thus protected by the CoCR too.

[Separatist Peoples]

Who a country does and does not grant citizenship to is outside the scope and purview of this proposal and the World Assembly as a whole, in my opinion. Though what you suggest does sound like a country acting contrary to good faith and RNT which we assume all nations comply with when drafting.

Good faith compliance is never an expectation- the name of the game is bending the rules to your benefit. You must be playing at something because I know you're not that naive.

But go right ahead. I mean, it would just be a simple way of actually getting your resolution to do something more than cut down on a little paperwork. Why go all the way? Half a good job is certainly sufficient.

"By most reasonable interpretations, a child adopted in a nation is granted legal residency by virtue of the legal guardians being legal residents. There's little value in not doing so, as the proceedings would outweigh the cost of granting such status. However, I fail to see why citizenship is necessary when legal resident status is sufficient. Perhaps I'm picking nits, but our citizenship requirements are strict and a matter of pride."

[Moronist Decisions]

Europeia votes 7-1 in favor of this resolution. We find this to be well-written, with reasonable guidelines on a topic of international importance.

Moronist Decisions
World Assembly Delegate of Europeia

[Christian Democrats]

As I indicated earlier, I am AGAINST this proposal because I believe it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate in favor of married couples, especially those incapable of having children, in adoption.

[Elke and Elba]

I'm split.

The clause pointed out by Normlpeople is enough to be a deal breaker.