This dissertation examines a unique class of immigrants: foreign orphans adopted by American families. Those children accounted for 18,000 adoptions in 1984 and 1985, or 20 percent of non-relative adoptions in the United States. This rapidly increasing class of immigrants is subject to Federal regulation of immigration and to State regulation of adoption. Visa petitions for foreign orphans, filed by adopting American citizens, are the only immigration petitions for permanent residence that are subject to a State veto. Regulation of intercountry adoption in the United States exposes adopting citizen parents to significant variations in requirements, costs, time, etc., and even in the ultimate issue of Federal approval of their immigration petition - all based on the State in which they reside.

This dissertation will make a case for changing the U.S. Code to eliminate the interjurisdictional confusion in which 50 systems of orphan immigration take the place of a unitary Federal system of immigration. The dissertation uses Supreme Court opinions with a more traditional policy analysis to show that the current system conflicts with fundamental constitutional values of individual rights and federalism. Conversely, the advocated change is shown to be on solid constitutional ground. The dissertation does not argue that the current system is "unconstitutional," but that the system fosters inequity and interjurisdictional confusion which Congress can and should correct.

The dissertation examines the immigration and adoption elements involved, provides new data on American and intercountry adoption, and reviews American and foreign procedures. This establishes that intercountry adoption is a major alternative in American family building, that the system is safe, the children are healthy and that the system is closely regulated by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department, and, in foreign countries, by national ministries, juvenile courts and other institutions. Problems often associated with intercountry adoption are shown to be based on misinformation and a lack of familiarity with the extent of Federal and foreign regulation.

Conversely, the State role is shown to be duplicative and based on less than compelling constitutional grounds. The dissertation challenges the notion that State jurisdiction over family relations justifies a State role in intercountry adoption and shows that some State policies on foreign adoption are based on unrealistic assumptions about States' administrative and technical capacities. Similarly, the dissertation shows that mandating a role for American adoption agencies in intercountry adoption (as some States now require) is inappropriate, and that a pre-emptive State role does not add constructively to the regulatory system. The State role adds to delays and costs incurred by citizens, with no additional public benefit.