International adoption started as a way to help children get away from extreme circumstances. For example, “eight war orphans were adopted from South Korea in 1955 by a family in Oregon” (Maggie, Jones). This story appeared in newspapers all around the United States which sparked the need for different families to be apart of this new idea. International Adoption has fluctuated throughout time and is very different than what it was in the 50’s.“With different natural disasters, the rate of young teenagers pregnancy rising, contraceptives being created, wars, laws created, and the rate of single mothers rising, it is apparent why international adoption has been increasing and decreasing over the years” (Maggie, Jones) Countries closing off international adoption to end children being illegally traded for money with other countries. These countries should fight to change the laws through the Hague Convention or through another source to stop this black market, instead of giving up.

Many parents decide to adopt internationally compared to domestically. Although the prices are very similiar, there are many children in need in other countries. In America, adoption of a newborn is very hard to find. If you go this route you will usually have to pay extra to help with the biological mother. But, if you adopt a child from a foster home usually these children are older. For this reason many adoptive parents want to have a child grow up in there home so they view international adoption a better route. International adoption was first started to help and save war orphans and give them a safe and loving environment. Then it turned into many children who are living in poverty to be adopted to a safe and loving family in America. While now children are being taken from orphanages. This constant income of money from parents, who are trying to build a family and will do anything to accomplish this, is what created the black market.  

The black market started when people would abuse international adoption to get money instead of helping children without a family or home.“A nursery is where children will live at an orphanage temporarily because sometimes a family can’t afford to feed or pay for them” (Cherot, Natalie). At a nursery parents have not consented to adoption although some of these children are still adopted. Another option is to live in a foster home. This way a child can “receive more one-on-one attention compared to orphanages and nurseries” (Maggie, Jones). A problem with this is Foster Homes are not usually available and if they are usually a lot of children live in them, just like a nursery or orphanage. “Russia, Ghana, Bhutan, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Rwanda” have closed their doors to international adoption ("International Adoptions in Decline as Number of Orphans Grows."). These countries got so scared of these people or adoption agencies abusing international adoption that they cut it off completely without exercising all of the options. One of the options is known as the Hague Convention which is trying to standardize the process of international adoption.  

“Seventy countries” who all “come together to try and make international adoption the same everywhere” (Cherot, Natalie & U.S. Department of State, Par. 1).By creating the same exchanges between each country could make it much harder to have illegal exchanges. If we limit the amount of money, number of agencies and the contracts signed then we can make it harder to finesse the system. The Hague Convention first started just as an “international declaration of peace between countries” (U.S. Department of State). The Hague Convention has an “application you can fill out as a parent who thinks their child may have been taken from a nursery” (Robertson, Catharine).  If that country is apart of the Hague Convention then, they can get in touch with a representor to try and get their child returned. 

Many people are trying to get adoptions to be the last case scenarios. They would rather keep them in their home country and provide foster and day care while also bettering orphanages. But this is not a cheap thing and many countries do not have this type of money. A lot of people are trying to help, but in some cases in an odd way. A woman named Laura Silsby tried to sneak back in 33 people to America to “house the children and later move them to an adoption” ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). Of course this was not okay with the Haitian government so she was jailed for four months for arranging illegal travel by Haitian court.

Unlike this example many people are also trying to help. After a “quarterback named Craig Juntunen visited a Haiti orphanage, he adopted three children from here with his wife” ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). Now Juntunen is trying to not only raise the overseas children adoption number but also change the average wait time to something much lower. Just as Craig is helping many others want to help. “America wants to help increase the training and technology in other countries to ensure these couple of bad cases do not happen anymore” ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?". This way international adoption can again grow.

Elizabeth Bartholet, director of the Child Advocacy at Harvard who also adopted two children from Peru, said “..If a plane goes down, they don’t ground the whole airline industry… the only institution [she] can think of that when there’s a problem, they shut it down, is international adoption” ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). Why is international adoption the only institution that people shut down after corruption. This makes it seem that there is only one option when in reality there are always more options. As one country closes their adoption, another country's adoption rates skyrocket. For example, “Guatemala had one child per every one-hundred births adopted” before they closed their international adoption agencies ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). After Guatemala closed, “Ethiopia's adoptions went from less than nine-hundred a year to about four and a half thousand, 5 years later” ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). As these rates go up in a particular country, everyone wants to be apart of this lucrative business in that country. Some of these people involved in the business should have no part in working with children. Because of these corrupt people, all international adoption agencies gets their reputation smeared. Many adoptives have a good life just as Srey Powers. She was “adopted by a nice family after being in a refugee camp for many years” (Voigt, Kevin). But some have a bad life such as Tarikuwa Lemma. “Tarikua jumped from adoptive family to adoptive family while trying to tell them her family was still alive at her home” (Voigt, Kevin). Although her biological mother did die, she had her father and many other family members there who love and support her back in Ethiopia. She was taken from her family, which is very common through international adoption. Although this is common closing of international adoption will not solve this problem. This means that this cycle of countries trying to become apart of this adoption process after other countries drop out, will never end. So why keep closing your country off if there are other options. 

Everyone should be apart of the Hague Convention. “China, Russia, South Korea, and Guatemala are the top four countries that the United states adopts children from” (O’Keefe, Kate). Only one out of four of those countries is officially apart of the Hague Convention. Only “121 countries out of 196 countries” have not signed and ratified the Hague Convention” (O’Keefe Kate). These countries who have not signed and ratified the Hague convention are usually countries who are “struggling to overcome war, poverty and disease” rather than unwillingness (O’Keefe, Kate). Closing off adoption to 62% of the world, who are willing to give children without families a better life in America, just does not make sense. And, just because a country is not apart of the Hague Convention, does not mean that this country is apart of child trafficking. Countries in poverty and wars’ biggest issue is usually not international adoption. This is because usually countries usually do not know just how bad this issue is. They need to ask themselves how they would feel if one day they were taken away from their families and sent to a place they’ve never been with people they’ve never met. These children put in nurseries are usually there temporarily because their families just cannot support them but still love them and want to be apart of their life. After answering this question it is very easy to realize what needs to be done. But, if this does not work then America needs to create an Incentive for them to join. When America adopts from another country it can usually cost around “50,000.00” dollars ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). If a country is in poverty, this money could make a huge difference for them. If America stopped this money from coming in because they are not apart of the Hague Convention, then this could create a need to join the Hague Convention. This means one more country who is standardized, and could mean one more kid being taken from their family.

Some say international adoption is doing more hurt to the child than it is good sometimes. Maggie Jones is a writer for the New York Times who is a Columbia University alumni for Journalism. Jones says, “[She doesn’t] think it’s normal adopting a child from another country, of another race and paying a lot of money. [She doesn’t] think it’s normal to put a child on a plane away from all its kin and different smells”. The desperation of parents wanting to adopt these children to start a family and hopefully give them a better life outweighs all the negatives. Adoption internationally is a very long and complicated process but adoption inside of america sometimes can be even longer and complicated. You first have to go through multiple interviews to see if you are even a good fit to have children. After this it takes a lot of time and money to find a family who is willing to give up their child. After this the family giving up the child has to pick you out of other amazing people who also are just a desperate for a kid. This is way many people decide to adopt overseas to help save the struggling children. 

At a certain point in life many adopted children are confused to who they are. At this point they decide to try and go back to their home country to find themselves. The problem with this is they cannot truly find themselves. They are caught in between where they were born and where they grew up. This is where a lot of families who adopt children from others country go wrong. Some families want them so much to feel just like everyone else in their family and life. This may be a good idea when they are young and may not understand exactly what adoption is but, teaching them about where they are born is not a crime. If a child ever wants to go back to see they city they were born and try to find their biological family then, they will feel like a fish out of water. These children won’t know the culture, the language, the city, which makes it hard to find yourself if you don’t even know where you are. The author thinks because of this that international adoption should not be an option. Not knowing who you are can really confuse people but, there is always more than two options. If families instead teach their adopted child about the culture and language of where they’re from then, maybe they will know more about who they are. They could visit their home country and diverge themselves in the culture, learn the language, go to a summer culture camp to be with children who could also be going through the same thing, etc.. This way if an adopted child ever wants to go back to where they were born to try and find more about themselves then, 

As one adoption agency in a country closes because of illegal trading, another one opens. This cycle will constantly keep happening unless something changes. One solution could be to standardize all of the countries’ adoption process. By doing this, it is less likely to have corrupt adoption agencies because they are all now the same. The Hague Convention is known for bringing countries together to make this happen. There are only 70 countries in the Hague Convention. This means the 60% of the rest of the world could be apart of illegally trading of children. Many of these countries who are not apart of the convention are poor and usually in war. But because adoption brings in a lot of money to their economy, they would not want to give this up. If America tells them that they are cutting off international adoption with this country until they join the Hague Convention, this could give them an incentive to do something about it. Then as more and more countries join the Hague Convention this could keep one more child not at risk of being ripped away from their home and family. So what now? International adoption needs more people to know just what exactly is going on behind the scenes. This corruptness needs to stop and there are many options. International adoption needs more attention from the government of these countries to save these children from being taken from their loving family. This is why countries who close off international adoption, to end children being illegally traded for money with other countries, is not the best plan of action. These countries should fight to change the laws through the Hague Convention or through another source to stop this black market, instead of giving up. If these countries just give a little bit of their time, they could save hundreds of kids. 

