> the beneficent embrace of the American family was always conditional
My heart breaks for anyone brought to the US who weren’t given citizenship. I’m well aware of families who didn’t know there were additional steps to perform and often wonder what agencies failed their due diligence in guiding them through that process. Enough people screwed up that it seems absurd to deny citizenship to those who would otherwise have it.
My representative is adopted and has adopted and he’ll be receiving a letter encouraging his support of allowing citizenship for these adoptees that missed it through no fault of their own.
That said, as an adoptive parent this is a common trope - ignore the millions of successful adoptions to focus on those that are horrific. Cast parents as baby smugglers with fiendish intent. I’m sure those people exist, but as a parent in this community for almost 14 years, I’ve met untold families excited to provide for the needs of a child who has already experienced significant trauma. No adoption exists without loss. We can, at best, try to mend what’s already been done.
Fortunately, for us, the process for citizenship was laid out - also complicated and nerve racking. There were no conditions (except for us as parents and sponsors).
> Conservative opponents categorize it as an undesirable “immigration bill” and demand that adopted people with criminal records and the many dozen adoptees who have already been deported be excluded from the bill.
I’d also like to see a source for this claim. In the house there are 13 republican co-sponsors for the Adoptee Citizenship Act (including my rep). My personal experience is that adoptive parents are overwhelmingly conservative.
> My personal experience is that adoptive parents are overwhelmingly conservative.
The current republican leadership has been pretty shit lately insofar as being human. “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy” being a direct and recent quote by arguably the most powerful man on the planet.
That isn't to disagree with your personal experience by any stretch; just point out that those in power/pushing these laws are much more... raging asshole. MGT celebrating the popes death today as another example.
That's why the current voting trends frustrate me so much; base morality seems to have left the conversation. :(
Adam Smith sponsored the last bill. He said the issue being tied to immigration hindered the bill according to NPR.[1]
A National Korean American Service and Education Consortium representative said some Congress members don’t want to touch an immigration bill unless it is about border security according to AsAmNews.[2]
Over 200 House Republicans did not sponsor the last bill. Do we need a source for some Republicans not supporting citizenship for people with criminal records?
My first experience learning about Operation Babylift was being traumatized by the Christmas episode of Hey Arnold. It's a fascinating situation, saving babies that have no parents because of your actions as a country.
I don't like that this article was written in such a negative light. I am sure there were terrible situations, but also, you simply wouldn't be writing about a Vietnamese orphan that died on the street without ever being sent to adoptive parents. It feels a bit biased to treat this as an overall negative action by the US. I have met several Babylift adoptees living in SF, and I think they would voice dissenting opinions.
My wife and I looked a lot into adopting, and this is a really common thing.
You have adoptees who didn't have a great life and they are, justifiably, upset. But the problem is that you aren't hearing from the ones who are happy or just neutral about being adopted. So if you go to reddit, you'll hear a lot about the evils of adoption, and you won't hear anyone saying it was a positive outcome.
I'd be lying if I said it didn't influence us at all about adoption. In the end, we didn't feel we had the means to adopt and my company ended its adoption benefit, so it wasn't the only reason.
Adopting in this context does not have positive light. The kids in question got their parents taken away violently, their identity erased. Were taken back to the country that orphaned them and raised as Americans, then they get their families and identity taken away for a second time,
It’s not possible to separate the adoption from all of the context above.
Just wanted to say thanks for the submission. I never would have found this story otherwise, and it's both a powerful read and especially relevant to a close friend—she was one of the airlifted/trafficked babies and has never been able to find her birth parents.
guess this is off-topic but in 1999 i flew to uk (for the first time) via malaysia. the 747 stopped for fuel at munich and wandering the aisle i happened to talk to an old chinese lady that stunned me with very fluent tamil! (my mother tongue). she was adopted and brought up by immigrant tamil parents in malaysia. they even married her to a malaysia indian tamil man and she had a daughter that she was going to visit in manchester.
While I appreciate the story, I am honestly confused by The Verge's editorial choices in running a series of articles like this one. I understand it's been 50 years after the end of the American War in Vietnam, but what does it remotely have to do with tech?
Why are they publishing this story/these stories? How is it on-brand?
Again don't get me wrong. It's great that someone's doing it but... It just feels... wrong from an editorial product management perspective.
1. They're consciously trying to expand their brand and topics. Maybe it's a way to grow a broader audience or move "upscale" or something along those lines.
2. Somebody really wanted to do this, and the organization just ran with it.
Both are respectable options. I'd actually respect them more if it's option 2—building an organization to give enthusiastic people the space to do what they care about is one of the best ways to produce great, creative work. We need more places that are willing to do high quality things just because.
the verge has always identified themselves as reporting on the intersection of tech and culture. sometimes that swings more towards culture than tech, but this feels completely outside technology.
Separate tech from culture at your own blindfolded peril. Consider what a clean delineation between tech news and “real” news would mean, and what slant it would take on.
The Verge is publishing this piece in the context of today. There are undocumented migrants right now being moved around and out of country, put into detention centres, and being denied the due process that was previously in place. There is _a lot_ of tech in that ongoing story. To consider America’s history with forced migration at a time like this is perfectly reasonable.
> The old 90s tech magazines like CPU magazine or PC World come to mind
Not to be too facetious, but, where -- uh -- are those magazines today? The internet changed things. Being that hyper-focused on a topic makes for building a good niche, but maybe not a good business.
Talking about tech as if it exists outside the context that surrounds it is like talking about farming without considering who it feeds. Sure you can totally do that, but let’s not talk about why that silo of oats is rotting when there are hungry people out there.
Scroll down for the content: https://archive.ph/aD9os
> the beneficent embrace of the American family was always conditional
My heart breaks for anyone brought to the US who weren’t given citizenship. I’m well aware of families who didn’t know there were additional steps to perform and often wonder what agencies failed their due diligence in guiding them through that process. Enough people screwed up that it seems absurd to deny citizenship to those who would otherwise have it.
My representative is adopted and has adopted and he’ll be receiving a letter encouraging his support of allowing citizenship for these adoptees that missed it through no fault of their own.
That said, as an adoptive parent this is a common trope - ignore the millions of successful adoptions to focus on those that are horrific. Cast parents as baby smugglers with fiendish intent. I’m sure those people exist, but as a parent in this community for almost 14 years, I’ve met untold families excited to provide for the needs of a child who has already experienced significant trauma. No adoption exists without loss. We can, at best, try to mend what’s already been done.
Fortunately, for us, the process for citizenship was laid out - also complicated and nerve racking. There were no conditions (except for us as parents and sponsors).
My love for my children is unconditional.
> Conservative opponents categorize it as an undesirable “immigration bill” and demand that adopted people with criminal records and the many dozen adoptees who have already been deported be excluded from the bill.
I’d also like to see a source for this claim. In the house there are 13 republican co-sponsors for the Adoptee Citizenship Act (including my rep). My personal experience is that adoptive parents are overwhelmingly conservative.
> My personal experience is that adoptive parents are overwhelmingly conservative.
The current republican leadership has been pretty shit lately insofar as being human. “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy” being a direct and recent quote by arguably the most powerful man on the planet.
That isn't to disagree with your personal experience by any stretch; just point out that those in power/pushing these laws are much more... raging asshole. MGT celebrating the popes death today as another example.
That's why the current voting trends frustrate me so much; base morality seems to have left the conversation. :(
Adam Smith sponsored the last bill. He said the issue being tied to immigration hindered the bill according to NPR.[1]
A National Korean American Service and Education Consortium representative said some Congress members don’t want to touch an immigration bill unless it is about border security according to AsAmNews.[2]
Over 200 House Republicans did not sponsor the last bill. Do we need a source for some Republicans not supporting citizenship for people with criminal records?
How are adoptive parents' politics relevant?
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/04/19/g-s1-60166/trump-immigration-...
[2] https://asamnews.com/2024/08/21/adoptees-face-deportation-un...
None of this matters if we do not have due process.
My first experience learning about Operation Babylift was being traumatized by the Christmas episode of Hey Arnold. It's a fascinating situation, saving babies that have no parents because of your actions as a country.
I don't like that this article was written in such a negative light. I am sure there were terrible situations, but also, you simply wouldn't be writing about a Vietnamese orphan that died on the street without ever being sent to adoptive parents. It feels a bit biased to treat this as an overall negative action by the US. I have met several Babylift adoptees living in SF, and I think they would voice dissenting opinions.
My wife and I looked a lot into adopting, and this is a really common thing.
You have adoptees who didn't have a great life and they are, justifiably, upset. But the problem is that you aren't hearing from the ones who are happy or just neutral about being adopted. So if you go to reddit, you'll hear a lot about the evils of adoption, and you won't hear anyone saying it was a positive outcome.
I'd be lying if I said it didn't influence us at all about adoption. In the end, we didn't feel we had the means to adopt and my company ended its adoption benefit, so it wasn't the only reason.
Adopting in this context does not have positive light. The kids in question got their parents taken away violently, their identity erased. Were taken back to the country that orphaned them and raised as Americans, then they get their families and identity taken away for a second time,
It’s not possible to separate the adoption from all of the context above.
People were really desperate to get out of there at the end. A wild story is of Buang Ly who landed a Cessna on a US aircraft carrier: https://www.historynet.com/maj-buang-lys-daring-feat-to-save...
Just wanted to say thanks for the submission. I never would have found this story otherwise, and it's both a powerful read and especially relevant to a close friend—she was one of the airlifted/trafficked babies and has never been able to find her birth parents.
guess this is off-topic but in 1999 i flew to uk (for the first time) via malaysia. the 747 stopped for fuel at munich and wandering the aisle i happened to talk to an old chinese lady that stunned me with very fluent tamil! (my mother tongue). she was adopted and brought up by immigrant tamil parents in malaysia. they even married her to a malaysia indian tamil man and she had a daughter that she was going to visit in manchester.
"Out of the Fog" is about the experience of "war babies" and other Asians adopted into the U.S., as they have grown to adulthood.
Title: The rescued Vietnamese infants of Operation Babylift have grown up
While I appreciate the story, I am honestly confused by The Verge's editorial choices in running a series of articles like this one. I understand it's been 50 years after the end of the American War in Vietnam, but what does it remotely have to do with tech?
Why are they publishing this story/these stories? How is it on-brand? Again don't get me wrong. It's great that someone's doing it but... It just feels... wrong from an editorial product management perspective.
Two possibilities:
1. They're consciously trying to expand their brand and topics. Maybe it's a way to grow a broader audience or move "upscale" or something along those lines.
2. Somebody really wanted to do this, and the organization just ran with it.
Both are respectable options. I'd actually respect them more if it's option 2—building an organization to give enthusiastic people the space to do what they care about is one of the best ways to produce great, creative work. We need more places that are willing to do high quality things just because.
They are doing an American War series https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/650505/vietnam-war-fall...
The editors are Kevin Nguyen and Sarah Jeong. I guess the have various other staffers like Camille Bromley do certain articles.
The Verge has been publishing non-tech related stories for ages. Technology still seems to be their main focus, but this isn't new.
the verge has always identified themselves as reporting on the intersection of tech and culture. sometimes that swings more towards culture than tech, but this feels completely outside technology.
I have been reading The Verge regularly for more than ten years. There was an increase in political articles since the first election of Trump.
Maybe its related to their move to a subscription model somehow.
Or the writer(s) have personal experience with it, and the editor lets his writers write about what they are passionate about.
Separate tech from culture at your own blindfolded peril. Consider what a clean delineation between tech news and “real” news would mean, and what slant it would take on.
The Verge is publishing this piece in the context of today. There are undocumented migrants right now being moved around and out of country, put into detention centres, and being denied the due process that was previously in place. There is _a lot_ of tech in that ongoing story. To consider America’s history with forced migration at a time like this is perfectly reasonable.
>Consider what a clean delineation between tech news and “real” news would mean
The old 90s tech magazines like CPU magazine or PC World come to mind. Nothing wrong with that kind of publication, and I wish there was more of it.
Not everything has to be about politics.
> The old 90s tech magazines like CPU magazine or PC World come to mind
Not to be too facetious, but, where -- uh -- are those magazines today? The internet changed things. Being that hyper-focused on a topic makes for building a good niche, but maybe not a good business.
Talking about tech as if it exists outside the context that surrounds it is like talking about farming without considering who it feeds. Sure you can totally do that, but let’s not talk about why that silo of oats is rotting when there are hungry people out there.
Peril, etc.
Maybe they want to be more about serious, meaningful journalism, and less about techbro press release regurgitation.